- This topic has 925 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 10 months ago by
Arraya.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 14, 2011 at 1:26 PM #654892January 14, 2011 at 1:29 PM #653780
Anonymous
GuestBrian you have this comically ass backwards…
Language does not shape culture, culture shapes language. Poverty does not lead to immorality, immorality leads (or perpetuates) to poverty. Language does not cause rednecks anymore than it causes welfare queens. These are cultures of poverty that language or even free stuff cannot fix. I am speaking in gross generalities…I am sorry if I set off the PC alarms.Arraya, if life is as predisposed as you or the social “scientists” claim, why put on your pants in the morning (figuratively speaking)…life should whisk you away on its forethought conveyer belt. This mindset (true or otherwise) would make a Calvinist blush. To loosely paraphrase Nitche, the only thing more depressing than religion is science…because in religion the universe is all about you, but in science you are less than insignificant, you are nothing…
January 14, 2011 at 1:29 PM #653847GuestBrian you have this comically ass backwards…
Language does not shape culture, culture shapes language. Poverty does not lead to immorality, immorality leads (or perpetuates) to poverty. Language does not cause rednecks anymore than it causes welfare queens. These are cultures of poverty that language or even free stuff cannot fix. I am speaking in gross generalities…I am sorry if I set off the PC alarms.Arraya, if life is as predisposed as you or the social “scientists” claim, why put on your pants in the morning (figuratively speaking)…life should whisk you away on its forethought conveyer belt. This mindset (true or otherwise) would make a Calvinist blush. To loosely paraphrase Nitche, the only thing more depressing than religion is science…because in religion the universe is all about you, but in science you are less than insignificant, you are nothing…
January 14, 2011 at 1:29 PM #654434GuestBrian you have this comically ass backwards…
Language does not shape culture, culture shapes language. Poverty does not lead to immorality, immorality leads (or perpetuates) to poverty. Language does not cause rednecks anymore than it causes welfare queens. These are cultures of poverty that language or even free stuff cannot fix. I am speaking in gross generalities…I am sorry if I set off the PC alarms.Arraya, if life is as predisposed as you or the social “scientists” claim, why put on your pants in the morning (figuratively speaking)…life should whisk you away on its forethought conveyer belt. This mindset (true or otherwise) would make a Calvinist blush. To loosely paraphrase Nitche, the only thing more depressing than religion is science…because in religion the universe is all about you, but in science you are less than insignificant, you are nothing…
January 14, 2011 at 1:29 PM #654570GuestBrian you have this comically ass backwards…
Language does not shape culture, culture shapes language. Poverty does not lead to immorality, immorality leads (or perpetuates) to poverty. Language does not cause rednecks anymore than it causes welfare queens. These are cultures of poverty that language or even free stuff cannot fix. I am speaking in gross generalities…I am sorry if I set off the PC alarms.Arraya, if life is as predisposed as you or the social “scientists” claim, why put on your pants in the morning (figuratively speaking)…life should whisk you away on its forethought conveyer belt. This mindset (true or otherwise) would make a Calvinist blush. To loosely paraphrase Nitche, the only thing more depressing than religion is science…because in religion the universe is all about you, but in science you are less than insignificant, you are nothing…
January 14, 2011 at 1:29 PM #654897GuestBrian you have this comically ass backwards…
Language does not shape culture, culture shapes language. Poverty does not lead to immorality, immorality leads (or perpetuates) to poverty. Language does not cause rednecks anymore than it causes welfare queens. These are cultures of poverty that language or even free stuff cannot fix. I am speaking in gross generalities…I am sorry if I set off the PC alarms.Arraya, if life is as predisposed as you or the social “scientists” claim, why put on your pants in the morning (figuratively speaking)…life should whisk you away on its forethought conveyer belt. This mindset (true or otherwise) would make a Calvinist blush. To loosely paraphrase Nitche, the only thing more depressing than religion is science…because in religion the universe is all about you, but in science you are less than insignificant, you are nothing…
January 14, 2011 at 1:42 PM #653800briansd1
Guest[quote=Rustico] You are kind of scary.[/quote]
I scare myself sometimes.
But you have no choice but to live dangerously when you’re dealing with dangerous people.
“Don’t retreat, reload.”
What are we supposed to do while the other side reloads?
Noting that heated rhetoric was nothing new in an America where politicians used to resort to dueling with pistols, she went on to defend vigorous disagreement. “If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas.”
It would have been good if she had stopped there. But then, with characteristic passion, she turned to what she knew would be her most memorable line: a charge that her critics are the ones guilty of fomenting violence.
“Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn,” she said. “That is reprehensible.”
By “blood libel,” Palin was referring, of course, to the charge that her own rhetoric had somehow increased the likelihood that a mentally disturbed young man would shoot people. And on the substance, she was right: There’s no evidence that her words — or anyone else’s —contributed to Saturday’s tragedy.
But her statement also confirmed something that should disqualify the former Alaska governor from ever seeking higher office: She has no sense of proportion.
A “blood libel” isn’t just a groundless charge that something sparked bloodshed. It is used primarily to refer to the monstrous anti-Semitic charge that Jews kidnapped and killed Christian infants for ritual use, a falsehood that provided a twisted justification for pogroms.
Palin was justified in accusing her critics of unfairness in using the tragedy as a talking point and in pointing a finger at her. But she went much further than that: She asserted that their argument “serves only to incite … violence.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-palin-20110113,0,4794503.column
January 14, 2011 at 1:42 PM #653867Guest[quote=Rustico] You are kind of scary.[/quote]
I scare myself sometimes.
But you have no choice but to live dangerously when you’re dealing with dangerous people.
“Don’t retreat, reload.”
What are we supposed to do while the other side reloads?
Noting that heated rhetoric was nothing new in an America where politicians used to resort to dueling with pistols, she went on to defend vigorous disagreement. “If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas.”
It would have been good if she had stopped there. But then, with characteristic passion, she turned to what she knew would be her most memorable line: a charge that her critics are the ones guilty of fomenting violence.
“Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn,” she said. “That is reprehensible.”
By “blood libel,” Palin was referring, of course, to the charge that her own rhetoric had somehow increased the likelihood that a mentally disturbed young man would shoot people. And on the substance, she was right: There’s no evidence that her words — or anyone else’s —contributed to Saturday’s tragedy.
But her statement also confirmed something that should disqualify the former Alaska governor from ever seeking higher office: She has no sense of proportion.
A “blood libel” isn’t just a groundless charge that something sparked bloodshed. It is used primarily to refer to the monstrous anti-Semitic charge that Jews kidnapped and killed Christian infants for ritual use, a falsehood that provided a twisted justification for pogroms.
Palin was justified in accusing her critics of unfairness in using the tragedy as a talking point and in pointing a finger at her. But she went much further than that: She asserted that their argument “serves only to incite … violence.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-palin-20110113,0,4794503.column
January 14, 2011 at 1:42 PM #654453Guest[quote=Rustico] You are kind of scary.[/quote]
I scare myself sometimes.
But you have no choice but to live dangerously when you’re dealing with dangerous people.
“Don’t retreat, reload.”
What are we supposed to do while the other side reloads?
Noting that heated rhetoric was nothing new in an America where politicians used to resort to dueling with pistols, she went on to defend vigorous disagreement. “If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas.”
It would have been good if she had stopped there. But then, with characteristic passion, she turned to what she knew would be her most memorable line: a charge that her critics are the ones guilty of fomenting violence.
“Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn,” she said. “That is reprehensible.”
By “blood libel,” Palin was referring, of course, to the charge that her own rhetoric had somehow increased the likelihood that a mentally disturbed young man would shoot people. And on the substance, she was right: There’s no evidence that her words — or anyone else’s —contributed to Saturday’s tragedy.
But her statement also confirmed something that should disqualify the former Alaska governor from ever seeking higher office: She has no sense of proportion.
A “blood libel” isn’t just a groundless charge that something sparked bloodshed. It is used primarily to refer to the monstrous anti-Semitic charge that Jews kidnapped and killed Christian infants for ritual use, a falsehood that provided a twisted justification for pogroms.
Palin was justified in accusing her critics of unfairness in using the tragedy as a talking point and in pointing a finger at her. But she went much further than that: She asserted that their argument “serves only to incite … violence.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-palin-20110113,0,4794503.column
January 14, 2011 at 1:42 PM #654589Guest[quote=Rustico] You are kind of scary.[/quote]
I scare myself sometimes.
But you have no choice but to live dangerously when you’re dealing with dangerous people.
“Don’t retreat, reload.”
What are we supposed to do while the other side reloads?
Noting that heated rhetoric was nothing new in an America where politicians used to resort to dueling with pistols, she went on to defend vigorous disagreement. “If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas.”
It would have been good if she had stopped there. But then, with characteristic passion, she turned to what she knew would be her most memorable line: a charge that her critics are the ones guilty of fomenting violence.
“Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn,” she said. “That is reprehensible.”
By “blood libel,” Palin was referring, of course, to the charge that her own rhetoric had somehow increased the likelihood that a mentally disturbed young man would shoot people. And on the substance, she was right: There’s no evidence that her words — or anyone else’s —contributed to Saturday’s tragedy.
But her statement also confirmed something that should disqualify the former Alaska governor from ever seeking higher office: She has no sense of proportion.
A “blood libel” isn’t just a groundless charge that something sparked bloodshed. It is used primarily to refer to the monstrous anti-Semitic charge that Jews kidnapped and killed Christian infants for ritual use, a falsehood that provided a twisted justification for pogroms.
Palin was justified in accusing her critics of unfairness in using the tragedy as a talking point and in pointing a finger at her. But she went much further than that: She asserted that their argument “serves only to incite … violence.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-palin-20110113,0,4794503.column
January 14, 2011 at 1:42 PM #654917Guest[quote=Rustico] You are kind of scary.[/quote]
I scare myself sometimes.
But you have no choice but to live dangerously when you’re dealing with dangerous people.
“Don’t retreat, reload.”
What are we supposed to do while the other side reloads?
Noting that heated rhetoric was nothing new in an America where politicians used to resort to dueling with pistols, she went on to defend vigorous disagreement. “If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas.”
It would have been good if she had stopped there. But then, with characteristic passion, she turned to what she knew would be her most memorable line: a charge that her critics are the ones guilty of fomenting violence.
“Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn,” she said. “That is reprehensible.”
By “blood libel,” Palin was referring, of course, to the charge that her own rhetoric had somehow increased the likelihood that a mentally disturbed young man would shoot people. And on the substance, she was right: There’s no evidence that her words — or anyone else’s —contributed to Saturday’s tragedy.
But her statement also confirmed something that should disqualify the former Alaska governor from ever seeking higher office: She has no sense of proportion.
A “blood libel” isn’t just a groundless charge that something sparked bloodshed. It is used primarily to refer to the monstrous anti-Semitic charge that Jews kidnapped and killed Christian infants for ritual use, a falsehood that provided a twisted justification for pogroms.
Palin was justified in accusing her critics of unfairness in using the tragedy as a talking point and in pointing a finger at her. But she went much further than that: She asserted that their argument “serves only to incite … violence.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-palin-20110113,0,4794503.column
January 14, 2011 at 1:43 PM #653805Arraya
ParticipantBrian, I was not quite advocating for propaganda and language manipulation to control people. But, more pointing out the fact that it is done, and in my opinion, mostly done for personal gain of a small minority on a grand scale. People are essentially herding animals controlled by emotion. See the housing bubble for example.
January 14, 2011 at 1:43 PM #653872ParticipantBrian, I was not quite advocating for propaganda and language manipulation to control people. But, more pointing out the fact that it is done, and in my opinion, mostly done for personal gain of a small minority on a grand scale. People are essentially herding animals controlled by emotion. See the housing bubble for example.
January 14, 2011 at 1:43 PM #654458ParticipantBrian, I was not quite advocating for propaganda and language manipulation to control people. But, more pointing out the fact that it is done, and in my opinion, mostly done for personal gain of a small minority on a grand scale. People are essentially herding animals controlled by emotion. See the housing bubble for example.
January 14, 2011 at 1:43 PM #654594ParticipantBrian, I was not quite advocating for propaganda and language manipulation to control people. But, more pointing out the fact that it is done, and in my opinion, mostly done for personal gain of a small minority on a grand scale. People are essentially herding animals controlled by emotion. See the housing bubble for example.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.