<=== The new Dr. J. 1K karma point award for Jafo

I wish I could fill my car's gas tank with all the wasted energy in these Forums.

Can we all just MOVE ON CIVILLY?

The choice of words could be based on prejudice.

Someone might dislike Colin Powell. That is fine.

But disliking that crafty nigger Powell is certainly something else.

I'm not going to quote what you wrote. I think you need to examine your use of 'language'. That's gracing what you wrote considerably. I would have written "that's like putting lipstick on a pig" but for the 'phoney umbrage' it would engender by willful misunderstanding.

To use that corrupted word is hateful. It is beyond belief that anyone could use it in a Forum. When I asked for civility I received this filth in return.

I will not participate in this thread again.

Unfortunately my computer has no Hebrew keyboard. I would have written, "Hamalbin pnay havero b'rabim ayn lo makom b'olam habah".

Loosely translated this means, "He who insults another in public has no place in the world to come."

Yes, I know. That's what I said.

So you don't want me to use bad words AND you don't want me to agree with you about why using those words is wrong.

If you want civility it might be helpful if YOU started to show some such. Somehow I get the feeling as if you feel that you are obviously excluded from your own call. And perhaps by asking for civility you really did mean that only I (and perhaps my "ilk") should be polite whereas you and yours should be allowed to do as you please.

Unless you weren't addressing me. But your reply was located under mine and since you didn't quote what you were referring to it was hard to tell.

This is not always the case, nor has it always been the case.  It is nice we can go to the store and purchase lamb chops without the trouble of killing and gutting the prey.  But someone does.  I doubt you would like the pictures of the slaughter houses and the abuses that go on there, yet you eagerly partake of their meat.  Which makes you guilty of far worse atrocities than the mainstream hunters.

But dont let the blood on your hands prevent you from partaking of that meal.  After all, you did not kill it.

He wrote about them in his book - did he write the book?

If that was all they were saying, I would agree it is just hysteria.  But you dont have to read far to see that most are saying a lot more than they just dont like her.

Exactly my point.

Show of hands. How many have heard the remark 'That dumb bitch' McCain or 'That dumb bitch' Obama?

No one?

Ok, how about this one. 'That dumb bitch' Hillary?

My guess is there are a lot of hands in the air out there.

To deny the fact of that particular slur being sex-based is to deny reality.

To excuse sex or race based negative comments solely on the fact that the person making those comments 'doesn't like someone' is an acceptance of sex or race as being legitimate qualifiers in how people are viewed.

Society as a whole has determined that these are not legitimate qualifiers particularly when used in a negative manner. Indeed, the ultimate goal is for everyone to been seen as equal without qualifiers that either raise them up or lower them in respect to any other person's status.

Well then....you better NOT use the words 'Liberals' and 'Democrats' and 'Republicans' as they are QUALIFIERS.....

'Bitch' in Palin's case is legitimate....afterall didn't she refer to herself as a bull-dog [or whatever]? ....

I guess liberals object to the words themselves, not necessarily the concepts.

For example in Germany displaying swastikas is an offence, even if done in a game like Wolfenstein 3D where the Nazis are the enemies. I believe the movie "The Producers" suffered a similar fate and was not shown in German cinemas for decades because of its use of Nazi words and symbols. It made fun of Nazis, to be sure, but it was the words and symbols that were the problem, not why they were used.

Indeed.

Amen, brother.

Context, dude!

Some words have a meaning that is perfectly justified as such (like a Latin word for "black" or a word for "female dog") but have been used for other purposes so often that it is hard to conceive that you are using them in the original sense.

A female bull-dog is, I guess, a bitch. But when applied to women the word "bitch" today insinuates something else. Calling her a "lioness" is probably acceptable.

(I wonder if the civility police will come down on me for using the word "bitch" in an explanation of why it shouldn't be used.)

(I guess "lioness" is safe.)

Let's have fun with contexts and vocabulary, shall we?

The anti-religious won't appreciate the prayer-reference [amen] and those who either are anti-communist/socialist and/or anti-unionist, and/or female probably won't appreciate 'brother', either....

....or is it a monastic term....implying one or other of you is in the priesthood? ....

It was NOT an insult!  You looked at what I wrote, 'thought' I said something else and was then sarcastic in reply.  What I said was an opinion of what you said... it was not not an attack on you as a person.

I have not accused Palin of anything that has not been made public knowledge by the media and/or the Senate inquiry into her abuses of power...  of anything that isn't already patently obvious to anyone with the power of unbiased observation... she is not blessed with coherent or intelligible communicative skills, which stongly suggests she does not possess the necessary mindskill to hold high office.

Do I like Sarah Palin? Certainly not... but not because she is a woman.  She reminds me too much of GWB... and I can't stand him, either.  Misogynistic, HARDLY!   I dislike, distrust many more men than I dislike, distrust women... but please, let's not go down the homophobic path... I have male friends that I admire and respect greatly.

Please re-read what I actually said/intended and you will see this statement is not correct.  I am not opposed to, nor do I condemn the killing of animals for food/survival... just the weekend hunters with a preoccupation with guns and a bloodlust.

No!   I voiced an opinion of something you said, without name calling.  You responded to my opinion with insults and name calling... there is a difference.

And in conclusion...

Perhaps then we can avoid future misunderstanings/working together against each other.

We actually agree on the hunting....

... but ended up working at cross purposes/agreeing to disagee with much the same view/opinion!  Could it be that came about because I called Palin a 'weekend hunter' - based on actual need and her own admissions during interviews - and you took umbrage to that because you're a Palin supporter?  Unfortunately, the truth/facts are inescapable... Palin has NO NEED to hunt moose, but hey, don't shoot me, I"m just one of the messengers.

Peace.

Stop it right here, buster!

"Amen" is Hebrew and means "sure". I use Hebrew words a lot in my life. But I realise it has a religious sense these days. But then "amen, brother" is again an idiom derived from the religious sense and now means something quite secular again (although it can be desribed as a sarcastic version of the religious term to point out how obvious the agreement is).

Oh, and I absolutely am anti-communist.

I'm not. Incidentally, I believe monks are the "brothers", priests are "fathers". But traditionally "brother" just means that we are social equals.

Amen v'b'emeth, achim v'achiot. (Acknowleding both the surety and truth of your statements, as well as men and women; just to be on the safe side.)

We have been there. You and I have no need to slaughter animals (or have them slaughtered by others) either.

I objected to your comparison of Palin to hunters you saw on a documentary. Neither of us know the woman personally. I know she hunts, so I assume she actually eats the meat. That makes her as immoral as I am because I also eat animals that were killed (not) by me (but for me).

I am fine with that. The remark of yours I understood as an insult was "revenged", if you will, and I guess we are done with that.