Words escape me #2
-
I said the same thing in a different way and now its rational? Idiot.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
I said the same thing in a different way and now its rational? Idiot.
No, Idiot, you wrote something ... an entire post ... which was rational and in which your points logically followed. edit: Refusing to see reality[^] is not rational. And your reaction to my response to that post was even worse.
-
fat_boy wrote:
I said the same thing in a different way and now its rational? Idiot.
No, Idiot, you wrote something ... an entire post ... which was rational and in which your points logically followed. edit: Refusing to see reality[^] is not rational. And your reaction to my response to that post was even worse.
-
Look at its usage in that rap video you linked to. It use there is offensive, as it is designed to be. How can you not see that and call it just a scarf? It is NOT natural atire for a westerner. The only reason it IS worn is as a political statement. That scarf is a symbol of death. Terrorist death. Beheading with a knife kind of death. Stoning death. Nasty, grim stuff.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
That scarf is a symbol of death. Terrorist death. Beheading with a knife kind of death. Stoning death. Nasty, grim stuff
You really have lost it, haven't you? I could do your entire rap on any prop in the ad. You might as well start claiming that every man who has a beard is a terrorist sympathizer. Or every muslim woman who wears a burka is expressing sympathy for all suicide bombers. Or that every member of the Green Berets is French. What a load of horseshit is dribbling from your lips.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
fat_boy wrote:
What I am surprised at is the reaction of so many people here who wouldnt have expected the add to be pulled. What planet do you live on?
Oh come on. What BS. It's a freakin' scarf! The whole world has gone to hell in a handbasket overreacting to something so fucking trivial. Marc
It used to be just a scarf until Arafat popularised its use and glorified the terrorist sentiments behind it. It is akin to the swastika in that the original meaning of the symbol bore little or no relation to what it came to mean. I agree that it is just a scarf but it has come to represent terrorism when worn by non-arabs. Of course the bizarre side is that it is standard head gear for many in the middle east and its roots go back even further. It is not the scarf that is the problem: it is what it symbolises.
-
fat_boy wrote:
What I am surprised at is the reaction of so many people here who wouldnt have expected the add to be pulled. What planet do you live on?
Oh come on. What BS. It's a freakin' scarf! The whole world has gone to hell in a handbasket overreacting to something so fucking trivial. Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
Oh come on. What BS. It's a freakin' scarf! The whole world has gone to hell in a handbasket overreacting to something so f***ing trivial.
Oh come on. What BS. It's a freakin' [reaction to politicized provocation]! The whole [leftist] world has gone to hell in a handbasket overreacting to something so f***ing trivial. :laugh:
-
It used to be just a scarf until Arafat popularised its use and glorified the terrorist sentiments behind it. It is akin to the swastika in that the original meaning of the symbol bore little or no relation to what it came to mean. I agree that it is just a scarf but it has come to represent terrorism when worn by non-arabs. Of course the bizarre side is that it is standard head gear for many in the middle east and its roots go back even further. It is not the scarf that is the problem: it is what it symbolises.
-
fat_boy wrote:
I said the same thing in a different way and now its rational? Idiot.
No, Idiot, you wrote something ... an entire post ... which was rational and in which your points logically followed. edit: Refusing to see reality[^] is not rational. And your reaction to my response to that post was even worse.
-
fat_boy wrote:
What I am surprised at is the reaction of so many people here who wouldnt have expected the add to be pulled. What planet do you live on?
Oh come on. What BS. It's a freakin' scarf! The whole world has gone to hell in a handbasket overreacting to something so fucking trivial. Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
The whole world has gone to hell in a handbasket overreacting to something so f***ing trivial.
Not the world, just a few of the guys whose elevator doesn't reach the top floor.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Oh come on. What BS. It's a freakin' scarf! The whole world has gone to hell in a handbasket overreacting to something so f***ing trivial.
Oh come on. What BS. It's a freakin' [reaction to politicized provocation]! The whole [leftist] world has gone to hell in a handbasket overreacting to something so f***ing trivial. :laugh:
-
Ilíon wrote:
Idiot,
Sorry, that was uncaled for. I apologise. I still say ban the bitch!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Sorry, that was uncaled for. I apologise.
Yes, it was uncalled for ... which is why I responded in kind (*). I accept the apology. And I do not hold grudges. (*) Maybe one of these days the little kiddies who like to whine about what a meanie I am will figure you that I merely give them what they ask for ... after they ask for it.
-
You know, there are other ways of emphasising words.
-
It used to be just a scarf until Arafat popularised its use and glorified the terrorist sentiments behind it. It is akin to the swastika in that the original meaning of the symbol bore little or no relation to what it came to mean. I agree that it is just a scarf but it has come to represent terrorism when worn by non-arabs. Of course the bizarre side is that it is standard head gear for many in the middle east and its roots go back even further. It is not the scarf that is the problem: it is what it symbolises.
-
fat_boy wrote:
That scarf is a symbol of death. Terrorist death. Beheading with a knife kind of death. Stoning death. Nasty, grim stuff
You really have lost it, haven't you? I could do your entire rap on any prop in the ad. You might as well start claiming that every man who has a beard is a terrorist sympathizer. Or every muslim woman who wears a burka is expressing sympathy for all suicide bombers. Or that every member of the Green Berets is French. What a load of horseshit is dribbling from your lips.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
You really have lost it, haven't you?
My Windows 7 DVD? Yes, I cant find the bugger anywhere, and I just trashed the install...
Oakman wrote:
I could do your entire rap on any prop in the ad
I doubt gansta rap is going to work too well with a donut. Or a cup of coffee...
Oakman wrote:
You might as well start claiming that every man who has a beard is a terrorist sympathizer.
Any WHITE man who goes for the full Islamic job, yes, I would. Look at Richard Reed for example. A clear example of what you say actually being correct, which, though unintentional, makes a first.
Oakman wrote:
Or every muslim woman who wears a burka is expressing sympathy for all suicide bombers
Do you know for sure she doesnt? Any woman in the west wearing a Burkah is clearly showing loyalty to Islam, and no the culture she lives in. Just how far does that loyalty go? Well, heres one who's loyalty clearly goes all the way:a few picks of Burkah clad women in London doing just that: [^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Oakman wrote:
You really have lost it, haven't you?
My Windows 7 DVD? Yes, I cant find the bugger anywhere, and I just trashed the install...
Oakman wrote:
I could do your entire rap on any prop in the ad
I doubt gansta rap is going to work too well with a donut. Or a cup of coffee...
Oakman wrote:
You might as well start claiming that every man who has a beard is a terrorist sympathizer.
Any WHITE man who goes for the full Islamic job, yes, I would. Look at Richard Reed for example. A clear example of what you say actually being correct, which, though unintentional, makes a first.
Oakman wrote:
Or every muslim woman who wears a burka is expressing sympathy for all suicide bombers
Do you know for sure she doesnt? Any woman in the west wearing a Burkah is clearly showing loyalty to Islam, and no the culture she lives in. Just how far does that loyalty go? Well, heres one who's loyalty clearly goes all the way:a few picks of Burkah clad women in London doing just that: [^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
:zzz:
digital man wrote:
just a scarf but it has come to represent terrorism when worn by non-arabs
Does that statement of yours also apply here [^] Just showing how nonsensical the issue can become !!!
-
:zzz:
digital man wrote:
just a scarf but it has come to represent terrorism when worn by non-arabs
Does that statement of yours also apply here [^] Just showing how nonsensical the issue can become !!!
Don't be ridiculous: we're talking a particular style and type of scarf that is worn quite innocently by many in the middle east but which has come to symbolise something quite different elsewhere. The scarf that woman is wearing probably smells of old person and stale piss. Much like your post.
-
I generally reserve itlalics for phrases or for foreign words. I'll offer you a deal: *YOU* attempt to convey tone as you wish and *I* will attempt to convey tone as I wish, and you can then keep your little mouth shut about my choice.
I've got a better deal: you keep writing badly, and I'll keep criticising you about it.
-
So, we had a little tongue in cheek discussion about the latest in a line of celebreties wearing a black and white checked scarf and whether or not she is showing tacit support for Palestinian terrosism or not. So, a little more research, actually gogling for images of the 'keffiyeh' bring up this: http://images.google.com/images?ndsp=18&um=1&hl=en&rls=GGLR,GGLR:2006-03,GGLR:en&q=keffiyeh&start=0&sa=N[^] And this: Ricky Martin donned a traditional red-checked keffiyeh with the phrase “Jerusalem is ours” inscribed in Arabic[^] So, what is obvious: 1) This scarf has become a left wing terrorist sympathiser fashion accessory in the west. 2) Kkeffiyehs come in many different styles and colours, and what Rachey Ray was wearing in that advert was certainly an example one. 3) Whether Rachel Ray was wearing it to make a statement, we dont know. 4) The advertising firm and dunkin donuts should have been aware of its use as a politicised fashion accessory and never let her wear it for the picture in the first place. 5) They were right to pull the add after public protest. 6) This scarf is a protest symbol worn by terrorists and has featured in videos where victiims have been beheaded. What I am surprised at is the reaction of so many people here who wouldnt have expected the add to be pulled. What planet do you live on?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
- This scarf has become a left wing terrorist sympathiser fashion accessory in the west.
Whilst that may be true, I for one (and many of my colleagues) when I was a motorcycle instructor wore them. Why? Because we were terrorist sympatysers? No, because they did the job we wanted them for (i.e. keeping warm) Additionally, when I was a bit of a "Ravey Davey", "back in the day", I used to wear mine as a kinda bandana....again, no implicit expression of support for anyone!
fat_boy wrote:
- They were right to pull the add after public protest.
SO you would agree that people should be told to remove crosses while presenting the news?
fat_boy wrote:
- This scarf is a protest symbol worn by terrorists and has featured in videos where victiims have been beheaded.
What a ludicrous statement! So were trousers! So were shoes! Are they no suddenly to be frowned upon? By wearing a pair of trousers does that mean I'm a terrorist symathiser? Let's call a spade a spade here - the most likely explanation is solidarity with the Palestinial people - it is afre all not just terrorists that wear em
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
-
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
Show's how much you know. Quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." [Source: Clickety[^]] So long as any expression does not impinge on another's freedoms (defamation or what have you) no one has the right to tear it down. They can complain all they want and even in the event of a public outrage no one can force them to anything. They can be convinced, and in their case being a for profit private organization they'll fold double quick.
That couldn't be more wrong. Private entities can limit your freedom of speech all they like. For the government to have the power to force private entities to tolerate speech they find disagreeable our counterproductive would be a gross abuse of state power.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Private entities can limit your freedom of speech all they like. For the government to have the power to force private entities to tolerate speech they find disagreeable our counterproductive would be a gross abuse of state power.
Well, they can do so in media that they control, n'est-ce pas? There's no way in hell I can get you to stfu on CP. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
fat_boy wrote:
- This scarf has become a left wing terrorist sympathiser fashion accessory in the west.
Whilst that may be true, I for one (and many of my colleagues) when I was a motorcycle instructor wore them. Why? Because we were terrorist sympatysers? No, because they did the job we wanted them for (i.e. keeping warm) Additionally, when I was a bit of a "Ravey Davey", "back in the day", I used to wear mine as a kinda bandana....again, no implicit expression of support for anyone!
fat_boy wrote:
- They were right to pull the add after public protest.
SO you would agree that people should be told to remove crosses while presenting the news?
fat_boy wrote:
- This scarf is a protest symbol worn by terrorists and has featured in videos where victiims have been beheaded.
What a ludicrous statement! So were trousers! So were shoes! Are they no suddenly to be frowned upon? By wearing a pair of trousers does that mean I'm a terrorist symathiser? Let's call a spade a spade here - the most likely explanation is solidarity with the Palestinial people - it is afre all not just terrorists that wear em
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
RichardGrimmer wrote:
SO you would agree that people should be told to remove crosses while presenting the news?
Thats up to the news channel.
RichardGrimmer wrote:
What a ludicrous statement!
Its not actually. It goes back to the 1930s if you gare to look into it a little deeper.
RichardGrimmer wrote:
the most likely explanation is solidarity with the Palestinial people
Who support terrorism. Enough said.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
