Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: zimdog
Of course, when I cited the English language's most respected dictionary, you refused to accept that definition because it's entry (1993) wasn't current enough.

Huh? I just reviewed my response and I indicated my only complaint with it was your mistaken portrayal of religions, nationalities, and geographies described in the definition as "races." Given those mistakes in your usage, your original assertion that the term is racial in nature remains unsubstantiated and unsourced.

On the subject in question (current racist slurs), urbandictionary.com is an invaluable source, if used carefully. I'll remind you that you have yet to produce a single dictionary that defines the term in question as a religious slur rather than a racial one. I have provided two.

No. You provided one source that was dismissed because it does not rise to the level of a valid scholarly citation, and a second source that did not show what you claimed. Again since you're the one making the affirmative assertion, sourcing it is incumbent upon you.

168 posted on 01/09/2007 12:44:47 PM PST by lqclamar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies ]


To: lqclamar
Huh? I just reviewed my response and I indicated my only complaint with it was your mistaken portrayal of religions, nationalities, and geographies described in the definition as "races." Given those mistakes in your usage, your original assertion that the term is racial in nature remains unsubstantiated and unsourced.

Please review your response again. And review my response to it. "Asiatic" is, of course, used as a racial term, much like "Asian" is used as a racial terms today.

No. You provided one source that was dismissed because it does not rise to the level of a valid scholarly citation, and a second source that did not show what you claimed. Again since you're the one making the affirmative assertion, sourcing it is incumbent upon you.

Urbandictionary.com constitutes a "primary source" for the contemporary use of the English language and is a particularly rich source for slang and racial slurs. A true scholar of language would not casually dismiss such a rich vein of examples of use.

You had claimed in your post #143 on that thread (and let's take the debate back to that thread, if you choose to continue it) that "The unifying point of the definition is its reference to the cloth headgarb connoted in the term itself. As that headgarb has, in recent decades, become increasingly associated with the mahometan religion, the term has taken on the characteristic of an anti-mahometan remark regardless of the mahometan's race."

However, despite being the one making an affirmative assertion, you have yet to cite any source -- primary or secondary, erudite or vulgar -- to support your claim.

169 posted on 01/09/2007 1:07:44 PM PST by zimdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson