The horror.... the horror ....

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Yeah. Well thanks for an honest answer. Personally, I would not allow a flag burning in my presence if there was anything at all that I could do to stop it, under any circumstances. If that's considered robbing another person of their free speech rights, then so be it.

That doesn't mean that I don't think that flag burning is a form of protected speech... I just don't think that doing nothing if I had a chance to stop it would be very honorable, because it's an act that is personally repugnant to me. To me, stopping someone from burning the flag would be an exercise of my own right to free speech.

So if I understand you correctly, every person has the right to freedom of speech.
Except when you don’t like what they’re saying.
Got it.

Actually, what I'm saying is that I don't have to just stand idly by and let someone burn the flag because I also have the right to freedom of speech. They have the right to burn it. I have the right to attempt to stop it from being burned.

If, as you claim, they have the right to burn the flag, then how can you possibly have the right to stop them from burning it? That means that you would be depriving them of a right that even you agree they are entitled to. That makes no sense.

Are you actually saying that I don't have the right to protest the act of burning the American flag?

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Yeah. Well thanks for an honest answer. Personally, I would not allow a flag burning in my presence if there was anything at all that I could do to stop it, under any circumstances. If that's considered robbing another person of their free speech rights, then so be it.

That doesn't mean that I don't think that flag burning is a form of protected speech... I just don't think that doing nothing if I had a chance to stop it would be very honorable, because it's an act that is personally repugnant to me. To me, stopping someone from burning the flag would be an exercise of my own right to free speech.

So if I understand you correctly, every person has the right to freedom of speech.
Except when you don’t like what they’re saying.
Got it.

Actually, what I'm saying is that I don't have to just stand idly by and let someone burn the flag because I also have the right to freedom of speech. They have the right to burn it. I have the right to attempt to stop it from being burned.

If, as you claim, they have the right to burn the flag, then how can you possibly have the right to stop them from burning it? That means that you would be depriving them of a right that even you agree they are entitled to. That makes no sense.

Are you actually saying that I don't have the right to protest the act of burning the American flag?

I’m not saying anything even remotely resembling that.
If someone says that they are going to burn the American flag at such and such a place and at such and such a time, you certainly have the right to show up ahead of time and erect protest signs, organize a march, or follow them all the way to that place, all the while screaming at them that they are unpatriotic motherfuckers, as far as I’m concerned. And if and when they do burn it, you can grab that flaming flag and dowse it in a bucket of water, because they will have already exercised their right to burn the flag, a right which you yourself have said that they have. You would not, however, have been within your rights had you prevented them from lighting it at all. But after they have lit the flag, I would think that you would be fully within your rights to extinguish it. That way, each of you has had the chance to exercise his right, and you can both go home happy.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Yeah. Well thanks for an honest answer. Personally, I would not allow a flag burning in my presence if there was anything at all that I could do to stop it, under any circumstances. If that's considered robbing another person of their free speech rights, then so be it.

That doesn't mean that I don't think that flag burning is a form of protected speech... I just don't think that doing nothing if I had a chance to stop it would be very honorable, because it's an act that is personally repugnant to me. To me, stopping someone from burning the flag would be an exercise of my own right to free speech.

So if I understand you correctly, every person has the right to freedom of speech.
Except when you don’t like what they’re saying.
Got it.

Actually, what I'm saying is that I don't have to just stand idly by and let someone burn the flag because I also have the right to freedom of speech. They have the right to burn it. I have the right to attempt to stop it from being burned.

If, as you claim, they have the right to burn the flag, then how can you possibly have the right to stop them from burning it? That means that you would be depriving them of a right that even you agree they are entitled to. That makes no sense.

Are you actually saying that I don't have the right to protest the act of burning the American flag?

I’m not saying anything even remotely resembling that.
If someone says that they are going to burn the American flag at such and such a place and at such and such a time, you certainly have the right to show up ahead of time and erect protest signs, organize a march, or follow them all the way to that place, all the while screaming at them that they are unpatriotic motherfuckers, as far as I’m concerned. And if and when they do burn it, you can grab that flaming flag and dowse it in a bucket of water, because they will have already exercised their right to burn the flag, a right which you yourself have said that they have. You would not, however, have been within your rights had you prevented them from lighting it at all. But after they have lit the flag, I would think that you would be fully within your rights to extinguish it. That way, each of you has had the chance to exercise his right, and you can both go home happy.

The fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot prosecute a person who burns the flag does not mean that an individual who prevents it is committing a crime.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Yeah. Well thanks for an honest answer. Personally, I would not allow a flag burning in my presence if there was anything at all that I could do to stop it, under any circumstances. If that's considered robbing another person of their free speech rights, then so be it.

That doesn't mean that I don't think that flag burning is a form of protected speech... I just don't think that doing nothing if I had a chance to stop it would be very honorable, because it's an act that is personally repugnant to me. To me, stopping someone from burning the flag would be an exercise of my own right to free speech.

So if I understand you correctly, every person has the right to freedom of speech.
Except when you don’t like what they’re saying.
Got it.

Actually, what I'm saying is that I don't have to just stand idly by and let someone burn the flag because I also have the right to freedom of speech. They have the right to burn it. I have the right to attempt to stop it from being burned.

If, as you claim, they have the right to burn the flag, then how can you possibly have the right to stop them from burning it? That means that you would be depriving them of a right that even you agree they are entitled to. That makes no sense.

Are you actually saying that I don't have the right to protest the act of burning the American flag?

I’m not saying anything even remotely resembling that.
If someone says that they are going to burn the American flag at such and such a place and at such and such a time, you certainly have the right to show up ahead of time and erect protest signs, organize a march, or follow them all the way to that place, all the while screaming at them that they are unpatriotic motherfuckers, as far as I’m concerned. And if and when they do burn it, you can grab that flaming flag and dowse it in a bucket of water, because they will have already exercised their right to burn the flag, a right which you yourself have said that they have. You would not, however, have been within your rights had you prevented them from lighting it at all. But after they have lit the flag, I would think that you would be fully within your rights to extinguish it. That way, each of you has had the chance to exercise his right, and you can both go home happy.

The fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot prosecute a person who burns the flag does not mean that an individual who prevents it is committing a crime.

If you used force or violence to prevent someone from burning the flag, then I believe that the government can indeed prosecute you.
Yanking someone’s personal property (their flag) out of their hands to prevent them from doing something perfectly legal with it would be tantamount to strong-arm robbery.
Or do you have some other magic method to prevent someone who is intent on burning a flag from doing just that?
Sweet reason and friendly persuasion, perhaps?

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:: Or do you have some other magic method to prevent someone who is intent on burning a flag from doing just that?
Sweet reason and friendly persuasion, perhaps?

Yep. A little "friendly persuasion" can be quite effective.

Posts : 6988

Kill people, not cows.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/la-vegans-go-war-death-888271

Top L.A. Vegan Restaurant Owners Receiving Death Threats for Slaughtering Animals

The owners of the most prominent vegan restaurant chain in Los Angeles were found to be raising and "harvesting" animals at their Northern California farm. Now Hollywood's vegan community is angry, and death threats have been made. "People have taken up the mob mentality," says Cafe Gratitude owner Matthew Engelhart.

………

Posts : 6988

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434963/cinco-de-mayo-oakland-police-drunk-driving-apology

Cops Apologize for Warning against Drunk Driving on Cinco de Mayo Because It Wasn’t PC

by KATHERINE TIMPF May 4, 2016 5:25 PM @KATTIMPF PC Police > Actual Police

The Oakland Police Department issued an apology for warning people not to drive drunk on Cinco de Mayo — because apparently, even acknowledging the fact that people often do drink on Cinco de Mayo is racist against Mexicans. It’s important to note that there was was absolutely nothing offensive about the warning. In fact, its second sentence actually reminded everyone that “historically, the fifth of May commemorates Mexico’s 1862 victory over France at the Battle of Puebla during the Franco-Mexican War” before explaining that that since “present-day celebrations often lead to drunk driving,” there would be increased DUI enforcement on the road, and people should remember to arrange safe transportation if they planned to celebrate. After all — PC or not — people do get drunk on Cinco de Mayo. Saying so isn’t “politically incorrect” — it’s stating a fact. And in any case, who could get mad about a warning that there would be more cops on the road? Well . . . apparently enough people to prompt the department to issue this apology: The Oakland Police Department would like to apologize for the recent press release addressing traffic safety enforcement during the Cinco de Mayo holiday. We acknowledge that the language in the message sent was completely insensitive to the cultural holiday. We have worked extensively to build trust with all our communities and value the amazing cultures that make up the heart of our City. We are taking appropriate steps to insure that this does not happen again. Our intentions were to raise awareness about drunk driving and notify the community of traffic safety during the important holiday. As for every holiday and celebration, we want to remind everyone to celebrate responsibly and safely. Yep, that’s right, folks — the actual police are very sorry that they tried to prevent drunk-driving related deaths, injuries and arrests. After all, the PC police are much more important than they are.

How racist!!!!

And I believe we should soon be hearing apologies for the below blatant racism.
Or not.

http://lbpost.com/news/2000008400-lbpd-to-increase-dui-patrols-for-st-patrick-s-day
ST. PATRICK'S DAY DUI PATROL
Long Beach Police to Increase DUI Patrols for St. Patrick's Day
byASIA MORRIS
MARCH 16 2016 17:34

https://nixle.com/alert/5606088/

Newport Beach Police Department
Monday March 14th, 2016 :: 09:56 a.m. PDT

Community
Increased DUI Patrols planned for St. Patrick’s Day

http://www.kcra.com/news/dui-enforcement-increased-for-st-patricks-day/38559098

NorCal DUI enforcement increases for St. Patrick's Day
Extra officers on patrol in problem areas of Sacramento, Placer counties
UPDATED 7:50 AM PDT Mar 17, 2016

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/in-transit/DUI-patrols-for-St-Patricks-Day.html

DUI patrols set for St. Patrick's Day
Updated: MARCH 17, 2016 — 8:57 AM EDT

Posts : 9728

[quote="happy jack"]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434963/cinco-de-mayo-oakland-police-drunk-driving-apology

Cops Apologize for Warning against Drunk Driving on Cinco de Mayo Because It Wasn’t PC

by KATHERINE TIMPF May 4, 2016 5:25 PM @KATTIMPF PC Police > Actual Police

The Oakland Police Department issued an apology for warning people not to drive drunk on Cinco de Mayo — because apparently, even acknowledging the fact that people often do drink on Cinco de Mayo is racist against Mexicans. It’s important to note that there was was absolutely nothing offensive about the warning. In fact, its second sentence actually reminded everyone that “historically, the fifth of May commemorates Mexico’s 1862 victory over France at the Battle of Puebla during the Franco-Mexican War” before explaining that that since “present-day celebrations often lead to drunk driving,” there would be increased DUI enforcement on the road, and people should remember to arrange safe transportation if they planned to celebrate. After all — PC or not — people do get drunk on Cinco de Mayo. Saying so isn’t “politically incorrect” — it’s stating a fact. And in any case, who could get mad about a warning that there would be more cops on the road? Well . . . apparently enough people to prompt the department to issue this apology: The Oakland Police Department would like to apologize for the recent press release addressing traffic safety enforcement during the Cinco de Mayo holiday. We acknowledge that the language in the message sent was completely insensitive to the cultural holiday. We have worked extensively to build trust with all our communities and value the amazing cultures that make up the heart of our City. We are taking appropriate steps to insure that this does not happen again. Our intentions were to raise awareness about drunk driving and notify the community of traffic safety during the important holiday. As for every holiday and celebration, we want to remind everyone to celebrate responsibly and safely. Yep, that’s right, folks — the actual police are very sorry that they tried to prevent drunk-driving related deaths, injuries and arrests. After all, the PC police are much more important than they are.

How racist!!!!

And I believe we should soon be hearing apologies for the below blatant racism.
Or not.
Naturally your article left out the actual message which is clearly offensive..

Quote :

OAKLAND (KPIX 5) — The Oakland Police Department issued an apology after an insensitive community message about drunk driving on Cinco de Mayo.

The police department’s original message – titled

Quote :: “Cinco de Mayo: Fiesta Time or Jail Time?” – said the celebration had become synonymous with “festive fiestas” and “salty margaritas” which could be a “recipe for disaster.”

“So before your first margarita, cold beer, or shot of tequila this Cinco de Mayo, make sure you have a designated sober driver or arranged another safe way home,” the press release advised.

Oakland City Councilman Noel Gallo says the police department’s warning about the dangers of drinking and driving during Cinco de Mayo twisted the holiday’s rich cultural history into a caricature.

ALSO READ: How Not To Be A Racially-Insensitive Jerk On Cinco De Mayo

“I don’t drink and drive. If you ask the majority of people who are Latino or Mexican-American, we don’t drink and drive,” Oakland City Councilman Noel Gallo told KPIX 5.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/05/03/oakland-police-apologize-after-insensitive-cinco-de-mayo-drunk-driving-message/

Now in the spirit of good will I suggest you study the following article before making a jackass of yourself today....
How Not To Be A Racially-Insensitive Jerk On Cinco De Mayo

Quote :: (CBS SF) — As Cinco de Mayo celebrations become institutionalized into a beer- and tequila-drinking holiday on the level of St. Patrick’s Day, there are plenty of reminders to people to avoid racially-insensitive costumes and imagery while indulging in Mexican fare.

The days of widespread belief that May 5th was Mexican independence day – rather than a commemoration of a Mexican victory over the French at the Battle of Puebla – are largely gone. However, the day is still mishandled by people in the U.S. who “celebrate” the day by perpetuating crude stereotypes of Mexicans.

It doesn’t help that the ‘holiday’ – which is not celebrated in Mexico outside of Puebla for the most part – is often referred to ‘Gringo de Mayo,’ ‘Drinko de Mayo’ or ‘Cinco de Drinko.’

Cinco de Mayo events often start with the best intentions, but instead of learning about Mexican culture and history, people celebrating the day can come off as insensitive.

Here’s a few things to avoid on this day (or any other day, for that matter):

Stay away from wearing fake mustaches, especially when accompanied by a sombrero, a serape or poncho, and most certainly while taking a siesta under a cactus. It is pretty much the worst Mexican stereotype of all.
If you still can’t resist the sombrero-mustache treatment, better not put it on social media, as plenty of fraternity and sorority members have discovered.
Avoid trying to speak Spanish by adding an ‘o’ to random words, such as ‘drinko’ or ‘beer-o’ as that would be muy malo.
Along the same lines, don’t be yelling out AYAYAYAYAYAYEEE!! or ‘ARRIBA, ARRIBA!!’ at the top of your lungs. Leave the gritos to Mexicanos that know how to sound legit and would never yell either one of those.
Adding heavy lip liner, tweaking your eyebrows, wearing a red bandanna and flashing gang signs does not make you a ‘chola,’ just a chump.
No problem in wearing a sombrero for kicks, especially a mariachi-style sombrero, but did you know there’s a correct way to wear the mariachi sombrero? One side is more curved-up than the other – the curved-up side goes in the back, comprende? However, no one will get bent out of shape if you wear it incorrectly.

In general, avoid doing things that you wouldn’t do in front of the parents of your significant other if they were Mexican. Just think about it first before you don a ‘costume’ that makes a mockery of someone’s culture.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:: Naturally your article left out the actual message which is clearly offensive..
Quote :
OAKLAND (KPIX 5) — The Oakland Police Department issued an apology after an insensitive community message about drunk driving on Cinco de Mayo.

The police department’s original message – titled
Quote :
“Cinco de Mayo: Fiesta Time or Jail Time?” – said the celebration had become synonymous with “festive fiestas” and “salty margaritas” which could be a “recipe for disaster.”

“So before your first margarita, cold beer, or shot of tequila this Cinco de Mayo, make sure you have a designated sober driver or arranged another safe way home,” the press release advised.

Explain how that is any more racially insensitive or offensive than warning people not to overdo it on St. Patrick’s Day.
You can’t, can you?
Didn’t think so.

Artie60438 wrote:: Now in the spirit of good will I suggest you study the following article before making a jackass of yourself today....
How Not To Be A Racially-Insensitive Jerk On Cinco De Mayo

Stay away from wearing fake mustaches, especially when accompanied by a sombrero, a serape or poncho, and most certainly while taking a siesta under a cactus.

1. …. Avoid trying to speak Spanish by adding an ‘o’ to random words, such as ‘drinko’ or ‘beer-o’ as that would be muy malo.
2. Along the same lines, don’t be yelling out AYAYAYAYAYAYEEE!! or ‘ARRIBA, ARRIBA!!’ at the top of your lungs.

You can have my fake mustache, sombrero, and poncho when you pry them from my manos muertas de frío, puto.
Now, I thinko I’m gonna go get a drinko, maybe get stinko, dress like a cholo, just like Marco Polo…. wait, he was Italian….
And, by the way – next March 17th, don’t forget to dress up as a leprechaun.
Cuz that's entirely acceptable.

AIYAIYAIYAIYAIIIIY!!!!

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Naturally your article left out the actual message which is clearly offensive..
Quote :
OAKLAND (KPIX 5) — The Oakland Police Department issued an apology after an insensitive community message about drunk driving on Cinco de Mayo.

The police department’s original message – titled
Quote :
“Cinco de Mayo: Fiesta Time or Jail Time?” – said the celebration had become synonymous with “festive fiestas” and “salty margaritas” which could be a “recipe for disaster.”

“So before your first margarita, cold beer, or shot of tequila this Cinco de Mayo, make sure you have a designated sober driver or arranged another safe way home,” the press release advised.

[b]Explain how that is any more racially insensitive or offensive than warning people not to overdo it on St. Patrick’s Day.
You can’t, can you?
Didn’t think so.

Because it specifically referenced Latino customs such as "Fiestas," rather than just generically warning people like "Don't overdue it on Cinco de Mayo". The articles you referenced didn't need to single out Jameson's whiskey or Guiness beer,did they?

Artie60438 wrote:: Now in the spirit of good will I suggest you study the following article before making a jackass of yourself today....
How Not To Be A Racially-Insensitive Jerk On Cinco De Mayo

Stay away from wearing fake mustaches, especially when accompanied by a sombrero, a serape or poncho, and most certainly while taking a siesta under a cactus.

1. …. Avoid trying to speak Spanish by adding an ‘o’ to random words, such as ‘drinko’ or ‘beer-o’ as that would be muy malo.
2. Along the same lines, don’t be yelling out AYAYAYAYAYAYEEE!! or ‘ARRIBA, ARRIBA!!’ at the top of your lungs.

jackass wrote:: [b]You can have my fake mustache, sombrero, and poncho when you pry them from my manos muertas de frío, puto.
Now, I thinko I’m gonna go get a drinko, maybe get stinko, dress like a cholo, just like Marco Polo…. wait, he was Italian….
And, by the way – next March 17th, don’t forget to dress up as a leprechaun.
Cuz that's entirely acceptable.
AIYAIYAIYAIYAIIIIY!!!!

Meanwhile your boy Trump managed to stick his foot in his mouth.

Quote :: Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 7h7 hours ago

Happy #CincoDeMayo! The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics! https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/10157008375200725:0 …

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Explain how that is any more racially insensitive or offensive than warning people not to overdo it on St. Patrick’s Day.
You can’t, can you?
Didn’t think so.

Because it specifically referenced Latino customs such as "Fiestas," rather than just generically warning people like "Don't overdue it on Cinco de Mayo". The articles you referenced didn't need to single out Jameson's whiskey or Guiness beer,did they?

No, they didn’t single out two Irish alcoholic beverages.
They just happened to single out the patron saint of the entire country.
What fucking point do you think you’ve made?

Overripe Anal Cyst wrote:

jackass wrote:: You can have my fake mustache, sombrero, and poncho when you pry them from my manos muertas de frío, puto.
Now, I thinko I’m gonna go get a drinko, maybe get stinko, dress like a cholo, just like Marco Polo…. wait, he was Italian….
And, by the way – next March 17th, don’t forget to dress up as a leprechaun.
Cuz that's entirely acceptable.
AIYAIYAIYAIYAIIIIY!!!!

Meanwhile your boy Trump managed to stick his foot in his mouth.

Quote :: Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 7h7 hours ago

Happy #CincoDeMayo! The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics! https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/10157008375200725:0 …

My boy Trump????

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Explain how that is any more racially insensitive or offensive than warning people not to overdo it on St. Patrick’s Day.
You can’t, can you?
Didn’t think so.

Because it specifically referenced Latino customs such as "Fiestas," rather than just generically warning people like "Don't overdue it on Cinco de Mayo". The articles you referenced didn't need to single out Jameson's whiskey or Guiness beer,did they?

[b]No, they didn’t single out two Irish alcoholic beverages.

How come?

Dumb as a box of rocks wrote:: They just happened to single out the patron saint of the entire country.

Yeah.it's the name of the holiday,you moron. What else should they call it?

troll wrote:: What fucking point do you think you’ve made?

One that you obviously can't comprehend.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Explain how that is any more racially insensitive or offensive than warning people not to overdo it on St. Patrick’s Day.
You can’t, can you?
Didn’t think so.

Because it specifically referenced Latino customs such as "Fiestas," rather than just generically warning people like "Don't overdue it on Cinco de Mayo". The articles you referenced didn't need to single out Jameson's whiskey or Guiness beer,did they?

No, they didn’t single out two Irish alcoholic beverages.

How come?

Dumb as a box of rocks wrote:: They just happened to single out the patron saint of the entire country.

Yeah.it's the name of the holiday,you moron. What else should they call it?

Are you seriously trying to claim that it is more culturally insensitive to mention a couple of beverages indigenous to a particular country than it is to set forth the implication that people are going to be driving around drunk because of the revered cultural icon, i.e., St. Patrick, of a particular country?
Exactly how motherfucking stupid are you?
(Don’t bother answering – I already know.)

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Explain how that is any more racially insensitive or offensive than warning people not to overdo it on St. Patrick’s Day.
You can’t, can you?
Didn’t think so.

Because it specifically referenced Latino customs such as "Fiestas," rather than just generically warning people like "Don't overdue it on Cinco de Mayo". The articles you referenced didn't need to single out Jameson's whiskey or Guiness beer,did they?

No, they didn’t single out two Irish alcoholic beverages.

How come?

Dumb as a box of rocks wrote:: They just happened to single out the patron saint of the entire country.

Yeah.it's the name of the holiday,you moron. What else should they call it?

[b]Are you seriously trying to claim that it is more culturally insensitive to mention a couple of beverages indigenous to a particular country than it is to set forth the implication that people are going to be driving around drunk because of the revered cultural icon, i.e., St. Patrick, of a particular country?
Exactly how motherfucking stupid are you?
(Don’t bother answering – I already know.)

If you can't see the difference between a generic "Don't drive on St Pat's" vs what was posted about CDM then I can't help you. Sleep

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Explain how that is any more racially insensitive or offensive than warning people not to overdo it on St. Patrick’s Day.
You can’t, can you?
Didn’t think so.

Because it specifically referenced Latino customs such as "Fiestas," rather than just generically warning people like "Don't overdue it on Cinco de Mayo". The articles you referenced didn't need to single out Jameson's whiskey or Guiness beer,did they?

No, they didn’t single out two Irish alcoholic beverages.

How come?

Dumb as a box of rocks wrote:: They just happened to single out the patron saint of the entire country.

Yeah.it's the name of the holiday,you moron. What else should they call it?

Are you seriously trying to claim that it is more culturally insensitive to mention a couple of beverages indigenous to a particular country than it is to set forth the implication that people are going to be driving around drunk because of the revered cultural icon, i.e., St. Patrick, of a particular country?
Exactly how motherfucking stupid are you?
(Don’t bother answering – I already know.)

If you can't see the difference between a generic "Don't drive on St Pat's" vs what was posted about CDM then I can't help you. Sleep

As to cultural insensitivity by degree, if you can’t see the vast gulf between blaming a nation’s allegedly favorite indigenous alcoholic beverages for incidences of drunk driving and implicating a nation’s centuries-old cultural icon for incidences of drunk driving, then I don’t think there’s anyone who can help you.
Ay, caramba!!!!
(Awfully quick with that Boredom Card, aren't we? Must be tough being so wrong, so fast.)

Posts : 9728

Suddenly, WashPost Puts 'Trump's Past Crude Sex Talk' with Howard Stern on Page One

Quote :: It’s mid-May, which means it’s time for The Washington Post to unload the cheap-shot “investigative” stories on the Republican front-runner. On the front of the May 11 Washington Post is a story on Trump’s sex boasts….and sex life. The online headline is “From playboy to president? Trump’s past crude sex talk collides with his White House bid.“ In the newspaper, it was "Before candidate Trump, there was playboy Trump: Extolling Lothario lifestyle worked for the developer, but now it behooves him to back off old boasts."

Bill Clinton’s crude sex talk? Not front-page news in the Post. Crude sex talk from JFK or LBJ? Not front-page news in the Post. Remember the 2008 Post story on Obama's sex life? But here’s how reporter Mary Jordan began, by quoting from a Trump radio interview with Howard Stern:

Over 15 years, radio shock jock Howard Stern and his buddy Donald Trump periodically carried on like towel-snapping “bros” in a locker room, rating women’s tops and bottoms, debating whether oral sex is “important,” and egging each other on about whether they would like to go to bed with famous women from Cindy Crawford to Diane Sawyer.

“You could’ve gotten her, right?” Stern asked Trump on-air shortly after Princess Diana’s death in 1997. “You could’ve nailed her.”

“I think I could have,” Trump said.

How about singer Mariah Carey? “Would you bang her?” Stern asked. Trump replied, “I would do it without hesitation.”

Trump’s crude talk on-air with Stern between 1990 and 2005 was part of an image the businessman cultivated as a Manhattan playboy who had so many women that he barely had time to sleep. He was often seen at trendy nightclubs with different women, appeared on the cover of Playboy magazine, wrote in his books about all the women chasing him and publicly boasted about his sex life.

Notice the Post didn’t locate these 19-year-old quotes when there were still Republican opponents in the race appealing for the conservative-Christian vote. The Post somehow couldn’t find the time for this story until the term “presumptive nominee” fit.

As if the Post never reported on the hijinks of Clinton and Lewinsky. Yeah,I'll bet those never made the front page Rolling Eyes

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: I just don't think that doing nothing if I had a chance to stop it would be very honorable, because it's an act that is personally repugnant to me. To me, stopping someone from burning the flag would be an exercise of my own right to free speech.

The above is what you wrote concerning the right to burn a flag, and your response to someone who avails himself of that right.
If a man was trying to enter a bathroom occupied by my 7 year-old daughter, an act that I consider to be personally repugnant, would you grant me that same latitude should I choose to deprive him of his newly-found right to enter that bathroom?
If not, why not?

Posts : 9728

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

There is no straw man involved.
The discussion concerns whether or not it is acceptable to deprive someone of a right merely because one finds the exercise of that right to be personally repugnant. The nature and details of the particular right are irrelevant - a right is a right is a right.
Now, either pay attention and try to keep up, or go back to the kids' table and allow the adults to talk without interruption.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

[b]There is no straw man involved.

Uh huh.

Quote :: The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

See if you can figure out which Person you are

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

There is no straw man involved.

Uh huh.

Quote :: The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

See if you can figure out which Person you are

I was not asserting anything, nor was I making any sort of argument; I was merely axing a question.
Therefore, I would have to conclude that I am neither of those persons.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: I just don't think that doing nothing if I had a chance to stop it would be very honorable, because it's an act that is personally repugnant to me. To me, stopping someone from burning the flag would be an exercise of my own right to free speech.

The above is what you wrote concerning the right to burn a flag, and your response to someone who avails himself of that right.
If a man was trying to enter a bathroom occupied by my 7 year-old daughter, an act that I consider to be personally repugnant, would you grant me that same latitude should I choose to deprive him of his newly-found right to enter that bathroom?

Absolutely... because you have the right to protect your daughter.

However, I disagree with the way that you characterized our discussion in your exchange with Artie...

happy jack wrote:: The discussion concerns whether or not it is acceptable to deprive someone of a right merely because one finds the exercise of that right to be personally repugnant. The nature and details of the particular right are irrelevant - a right is a right is a right.

Again, it's not just the fact that I find flag burning to be "personally repugnant." I was asserting that I had a right to stop a flag burning by virtue of my own right to free speech. I said exactly that in the quote that you cited. I really don't understand why you keep ignoring that part of my argument... because that's the crux of the argument.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: I just don't think that doing nothing if I had a chance to stop it would be very honorable, because it's an act that is personally repugnant to me. To me, stopping someone from burning the flag would be an exercise of my own right to free speech.

The above is what you wrote concerning the right to burn a flag, and your response to someone who avails himself of that right.
If a man was trying to enter a bathroom occupied by my 7 year-old daughter, an act that I consider to be personally repugnant, would you grant me that same latitude should I choose to deprive him of his newly-found right to enter that bathroom?

Absolutely... because you have the right to protect your daughter.

However, I disagree with the way that you characterized our discussion in your exchange with Artie...

happy jack wrote:: The discussion concerns whether or not it is acceptable to deprive someone of a right merely because one finds the exercise of that right to be personally repugnant. The nature and details of the particular right are irrelevant - a right is a right is a right.

Again, it's not just the fact that I find flag burning to be "personally repugnant." I was asserting that I had a right to stop a flag burning by virtue of my own right to free speech. I said exactly that in the quote that you cited. I really don't understand why you keep ignoring that part of my argument... because that's the crux of the argument.

I’m not ignoring anything; I’m just unclear as to why you feel that your right to free speech trumps that of another.
Though I agree with you on both counts, i.e., that flag-burning and a man in a little girls’ bathroom are both repugnant, if either one of us prevented those rights from being exercised, the rights of both the flag burner (who has an undisputed legal right to burn the flag) and the grown man in a little girls’ bathroom (who has an undisputed right to be there, apparently) would be violated.
Wouldn’t they?

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: I just don't think that doing nothing if I had a chance to stop it would be very honorable, because it's an act that is personally repugnant to me. To me, stopping someone from burning the flag would be an exercise of my own right to free speech.

The above is what you wrote concerning the right to burn a flag, and your response to someone who avails himself of that right.
If a man was trying to enter a bathroom occupied by my 7 year-old daughter, an act that I consider to be personally repugnant, would you grant me that same latitude should I choose to deprive him of his newly-found right to enter that bathroom?

Absolutely... because you have the right to protect your daughter.

However, I disagree with the way that you characterized our discussion in your exchange with Artie...

happy jack wrote:: The discussion concerns whether or not it is acceptable to deprive someone of a right merely because one finds the exercise of that right to be personally repugnant. The nature and details of the particular right are irrelevant - a right is a right is a right.

Again, it's not just the fact that I find flag burning to be "personally repugnant." I was asserting that I had a right to stop a flag burning by virtue of my own right to free speech. I said exactly that in the quote that you cited. I really don't understand why you keep ignoring that part of my argument... because that's the crux of the argument.

I’m not ignoring anything; I’m just unclear as to why you feel that your right to free speech trumps that of another.

It doesn't "trump" someone else's right. I suppose that it's a matter of conflicting rights. The way I look at it is that I have the same free speech rights as those who disagree with me. They're equal, much in the same way that 2 sides of a protest should both be able to exercise their right to free speech. If one side drowns out the other, that doesn't mean that the louder side is "trumping" the other sides rights.

Let's keep the act of protecting your daughter separate from the free speech question. The two subjects are not related. I really can't understand why you would hesitate to attempt to stop a man from entering the girls bathroom. A man has no business in a girls bathroom. He most certainly does not have an "undisputed right to be there." And there is no doubt that you have the right to protect your daughter.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: It doesn't "trump" someone else's right. I suppose that it's a matter of conflicting rights. The way I look at it is that I have the same free speech rights as those who disagree with me. They're equal, much in the same way that 2 sides of a protest should both be able to exercise their right to free speech. If one side drowns out the other, that doesn't mean that the louder side is "trumping" the other sides rights.

If someone is attempting to exercise his right to free speech by burning a flag and you are attempting to exercise your right to free speech by stopping him from doing that, then something’s gotta give, wouldn’t you say? Those two rights cannot exist in the same place at the same time.

Scorpion wrote:: A man has no business in a girls bathroom. He most certainly does not have an "undisputed right to be there."

Of course he does. All he needs to do is to claim that, today, he feels like a woman.
Who’s gonna legally stop him?