Libertarian

[RNReindeer]

I'm only here to restore parity and show what a lop-sided and blinkered view the racists have.

Laudable intentions indeed. The trouble is in the fighting of fire with fire

Is there an alternative way?

Here is a classic example....

It's one thing to have our own indigenous pedos, who mainly operate on their own or in small groups

You naive, ignorant silly little man. Bless.
http://ukpaedos-exposed.com/jimmy-s...ren-were-loaned-to-rich-paedophile-yachtsmen/
I know the story is historic, but if you think that indigenous white peados are without a large clever infrastructure of child abuse then you must be a complete idiot. And if you think it is not going on today then you are dumber than I thought. Difficult to believe I know.

Guess what Whitespittles' response was.........


Deafening eh?

I also asked (the coward) JBR for clarity on a few things and he avoided it with a pitifully lilly livered response.

I didn't bother acknowledging your pathetic, abusive post since you have lowered yourself to trawl sensationalist, witch hunting sites that make the Daily Mail look like a paragon of virtue. Your post is laced with the usual insults in a vain attempt to boost your non-argument.

Difference is, one religious group stands out in the paedo stats, and one racial group appears to be their main target. Today's authorities are tackling the Savile era crimes, but ignoring the ROP culprits. Funny that. The authorities must be full of people like you who want to cover up the disaster that is multi culturalism.

Flagrant racism, pure unadulterated bigotry.

 

[JBR]

Oh, he does blather on, doesn't he?

This'll shut him up. In fact, I'm sure that 'the usual culprit' (whoever that may be) will have the thread deleted before long!

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5177/no-go-zones-britain

 

[Newboy]

You're not seriously quoting the Gatestone Institute as a purveyor of impartial facts are you?

This is on a level with the idiot (sorry, expert security advisor) on Fox news when it comes to well informed Americans

 

[JBR]

OK, it's not Newboy then.

 

[Newboy]

You're back on the conspiracy theory again?

 

[RNReindeer]

You're back on the conspiracy theory again?

I did ask him sometime ago, how he manages to believe I've been banned so many times, yet I still have some influence with the mods?

That's not conspiracy, that's stooopidity.

 

[JBR]

Nor DC. The list grows shorter!

Edit: Perhaps it could be DC after all. He was the last person to post before the 'muslim tolerance' thread was locked!

 

[Kaymo]

I'd like to know what an apologist is?

It is a word only used as an insult to those who defend controversial subjects.

I'd see apologist as almost the opposite of that. Someone who defends the indefensible for their own convenience, the person who says 'thats just the way it is' or 'it takes time to change things' rather than standing up against something that would inconvenience them.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I'd like to know what an apologist is?

It is a word only used as an insult to those who defend controversial subjects.

I'd see apologist as almost the opposite of that. Someone who defends the indefensible for their own convenience, the person who says 'thats just the way it is' or 'it takes time to change things' rather than standing up against something that would inconvenience them.

That doesn't make much sense.

 

[Kaymo]

I'd like to know what an apologist is?

It is a word only used as an insult to those who defend controversial subjects.

I'd see apologist as almost the opposite of that. Someone who defends the indefensible for their own convenience, the person who says 'thats just the way it is' or 'it takes time to change things' rather than standing up against something that would inconvenience them.

That doesn't make much sense.

It makes perfect sense to me...

 

[RNReindeer]

He's behind you!

Oh no he's not!


Oh yes he is!

Surely the definition of the word is not the point.
If a word is used in the wrong context the semantics are meaningless.
(Can I say that: "semantics are meaningless"?)

Apologist - A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apologist)
Therefore more applicable to racists. Anti-racism is against a doctrine or policy, i.e. racism.


a person who offers a defence by argument.
Only applicable to anti-racists as racists have no reason or argument to offer.


a person who defends an idea, faith, cause, or institution.
Applicable to both, perhaps.


a person who defends, in speech or writing, a faith, doctrine, idea, or action.
Applicable to both.


Or:
apologist - a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution; "an apologist for capital punishment" or "an apologist for racism"
On this basis the word is more applicable to racists than to anti-racists.

Oh dear, another of their silly ideas blown clean out of the water.

 

[Kaymo]

The word in context is only normally used by people who disagree with the person they are referring to. Therefore if I was for example against Israel's activities in Palestine I would refer to someone who defended it as an apologist, because calling someone else an apologist implies that you believe they are wrong.

 

[RNReindeer]

The word in context is only normally used by people who disagree with the person they are referring to. Therefore if I was for example against Israel's activities in Palestine I would refer to someone who defended it as an apologist, because calling someone else an apologist implies that you believe they are wrong.

Therefore it's quite appropriate to call someone who defends racism as an apologist.
It's not applicable to call someone an apologist if they are objecting to racism.
Is that case closed?
Or do you want to emphasise that the racists were using the word in the wrong context?

 

[Kaymo]

I think I am agreeing with you. I would call someone who defended racism an apologist. My point about context is simply that that person would probably not refer to themselves as an apologist.

I would say that Tony Blair was an apologist for the Bush administration, but someone who believed his motivation and reasons for backing up Bush were pure and correct might call him an advocate or champion.

 

[RNReindeer]

I think I am agreeing with you. I would call someone who defended racism an apologist. My point about context is simply that that person would probably not refer to themselves as an apologist.

I would say that Tony Blair was an apologist for the Bush administration, but someone who believed his motivation and reasons for backing up Bush were pure and correct might call him an advocate or advocate or champion.

OK, for a racist to accuse someone who objects to their racism as an apologist is using the label out-of-context.
Moreover, they are applying a label that is more approriately allocated to themselves.
Typical cheap racist trick.