I mean, if you can’t figure out a way to properly express yourself without resorting to a particularly offensive profanity, then you are just a poor writer.
4 Likes
This is the nub of it. Derogatory, sure. ‘Sexual term’ - I dunno. Is ‘prick’ a sexual term? Is it a sexual term when you call someone a dick?
And then we get to ‘for a politically/socially oppressed group’. This is the difference between the American and the Brit/Irish/Aussie sense of the word. It just doesn’t mean ‘a woman’ here as it does in America (and I guess Canada).
As opposed to you, who is both a poor writer and a poor logician.
And before you whine about singled out by the stupidity posse - you’re not. I was pretty neutral towards you till this thread. I guess you just have that je ne sais quoi.
I see I’m being trolled again.
Someone is embarrassingly unaware of the many works of literature that use the word ■■■■■ "profusely, but hey what do you expect from a lawyer?
Given that they refer to sex organs, yes?
A slovenly wanker. A sloppy, disheveled git. A fatuous, hoggish, dodgy pillock…
1 Like
Jman and jal, please stop poking at each other.
I just did a search and found 12 good lawyers, so you’re wrong, case proved.
Sir!
Sir!
He started it!
Point taken.
It’s a good example of why having someone on ignore isn’t infallible when he constantly takes shots at you in the knowledge that you won’t see them (free shots!) unless someone responds to him (hit!).
Jalfrezi has me on ignore and cannot read my posts.
How do you feel about the terms “Number 1” and “Number 2”. Do you think we should start fining kindergarteners for their casual use of these phrases, which are quite obviously chock full of sexual innuendo?
Don’t know if you’re grunching, but we’ve been through this already.
Those words are specifically used as slurs against people with certain characteristics and have no other use - and that’s why they are unacceptable.
This is becoming tedious.
I think he has me on ignore as well. I wonder if he needs more Vitamin D?
1 Like
It’s really not how I would have understood the phrase ‘sexual term’, but it’s not really determinative, just illustrative of the differences imo.
It boils down to different usages in the UK and US.
Alright. Reconsidered after the warning is a mistake, but whatever. I’m able to accept that I will continuously make mistakes.
“what do you expect from a lawyer” was another shot and violates the terms of the rule I semi-made up/interpreted from the vote.
1day ban
I’m busy. If anyone wants to make a vote on whether/how long I should try to keep this up, if be grateful.
1 Like
lol ok
Nothing for jman’s original shot?
1 Like
No because sexual innuendo isn’t the thing that’s on trial here.