User Tag List

Page 223 of 223 FirstFirst ... 123173213220221222223
Results 3,331 to 3,340 of 3340

Thread: Town Quixote's

  1. #3331
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,145
    Thanks
    3,946
    Thanked 8,472 Times in 4,948 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147843
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    One is sufficient.
    Of course.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  2. #3332
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,961
    Thanks
    2,822
    Thanked 4,863 Times in 2,923 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147740
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    One is sufficient.
    Then you'd agree with Town. I don't on this particular because I've seen old men use different terms and they've never meant the entire race, nor was it only designated for one or two persons of a particular color. A remark in frustration to any particular person isn't to be applied to the rest of the race/group. It was wrong yes, but to make it worse in your own head? As far as I've ever found, with few exceptions, it is going too far and being less than charitable. It is exactly a gross exaggeration and error. Okay, there are those who disagree. Fine but I certainly can prove the accusation is much further than the scope of the comment. One then, as far as words and correct meaning, means and only 'one.' "Two" means and only 'two.'
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  3. #3333
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,145
    Thanks
    3,946
    Thanked 8,472 Times in 4,948 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147843
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    Then you'd agree with Town. I don't on this particular because I've seen old men use different terms and they've never meant the entire race, nor was it only designated for one or two persons of a particular color. A remark in frustration to any particular person isn't to be applied to the rest of the race/group. It was wrong yes, but to make it worse in your own head? As far as I've ever found, with few exceptions, it is going too far and being less than charitable. It is exactly a gross exaggeration and error. Okay, there are those who disagree. Fine but I certainly can prove the accusation is much further than the scope of the comment. One then, as far as words and correct meaning, means and only 'one.' "Two" means and only 'two.'
    I find that willfully, stunningly naive. But I say that without rancor or ill will, brother.
    Last edited by Town Heretic; September 12th, 2019 at 12:38 PM.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  4. #3334
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,961
    Thanks
    2,822
    Thanked 4,863 Times in 2,923 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147740
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    I find that willfully, stunningly naive. But I say that without rancor or ill will, brother.
    Or me, finding it over-reaching and problematic? I don't mean it with ill-will either. He was wrong. The question is whether 1) he thought all of a particular race were simian rather than simply frustrated with what he saw as an inept vote and 2) whether he changed from it later in life and grew into the dignity of the Presidency.

    He certainly wasn't perfect. He certainly shouldn't have said anything terrible about African UN delegates. My naivety only goes so far, and as I said, it is often purposeful (willful). Some judges have no restraint and forget blind justice when they give too long a sentence for a lesser crime than they one they are prejudice themselves against. My aim is still balance, just and fair.

    I think too, simply addressing the scope of the prior statement wouldn't bring up all this attached dialogue and the necessity (I believe) of it. He simply said in 'some' cases individuals are to blame, not society. Wouldn't it still be better and would have been better to simply talk about whether such was true rather than aim for character and/or weight of his thoughts?

    Where from here? I think I embrace you as my brother as well, and hope that something meaningful passes for eternal worth here.

    In Him -Lon
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  5. #3335
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,145
    Thanks
    3,946
    Thanked 8,472 Times in 4,948 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147843
    "To see those, those monkeys from those African countries — damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes!" Ronald Reagan
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    He was wrong.
    Indisputably, to me. But I don't understand why you think he was wrong. I think he was wrong because he used a racist trope.

    The question is whether 1) he thought all of a particular race were simian rather than simply frustrated with what he saw as an inept vote
    No, that's not the question. The question is why did he use a racist trope, aimed at black men, to express his frustration?

    and 2) whether he changed from it later in life and grew into the dignity of the Presidency.
    I don't know. The comment was made in 1971. Reagan would have been, what, sixty? And he'd lived through the Civil Rights Movement by that point. If that didn't do it I'm not sure anything would. I'm not even sure he thought of himself as racist or of his remarks as being something like the N-bomb. Likely he didn't.

    More than a few fairly passive racists have made that mistake. The sort that lets a woman say that Michelle Obama looks like a gorilla, then claim not to actually be a racist.

    He certainly wasn't perfect.
    We're all imperfect. Hitler wasn't perfect either. It's not a particularly strong mitigator.

    He certainly shouldn't have said anything terrible about African UN delegates.
    He could have strongly objected to their votes without the monkey business, to be sure.

    My aim is still balance, just and fair.
    Then be those things and don't excuse or mitigate the inexcusable and plain.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  6. #3336
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,961
    Thanks
    2,822
    Thanked 4,863 Times in 2,923 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147740
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    "To see those, those monkeys from those African countries damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes!" Ronald Reagan

    Indisputably, to me. But I don't understand why you think he was wrong. I think he was wrong because he used a racist trope.
    As I've said in the other thread, it'd be a lot like me calling a Cajun an ignorant shirtless hillbilly hog: Not racist. It may be, but I can't read minds as to such intent. It is, yet, imho, wrong to throw that wilder accusation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    No, that's not the question. The question is why did he use a racist trope, aimed at black men, to express his frustration?
    Again, it is racist toward a very specific kind of person. "If" you label to all peoples of a particular color, it is much farther reaching than proof can sustain. When Chris Rock, for instance, uses the "N-word" he uses it specifically and only for people of reprehensible behavior.


    I don't know. The comment was made in 1971. Reagan would have been, what, sixty? And he'd lived through the Civil Rights Movement by that point. If that didn't do it I'm not sure anything would. I'm not even sure he thought of himself as racist or of his remarks as being something like the N-bomb. Likely he didn't.

    More than a few fairly passive racists have made that mistake. The sort that lets a woman say that Michelle Obama looks like a gorilla, then claim not to actually be a racist.
    Again, large binning a frustration as if both are the same. I'm not sure of the context of the women who said she looked like a gorilla. Mad? Because she happened to actually resemble one with an expression? Making fun of her because of her color? What was the context?


    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    We're all imperfect. Hitler wasn't perfect either. It's not a particularly strong mitigator.
    Most things compared to Hitler seldom are. It is about as far reaching as trying to discredit Reagan's former statement by character assassination, as if one discounts the credibility of the other....


    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    He could have strongly objected to their votes without the monkey business, to be sure.
    Absolutely. It was wrong. Why? Because calling any of God's people derogatory names, even in frustration lacks holiness.



    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Then be those things and don't excuse or mitigate the inexcusable and plain.
    I didn't seek to discredit Reagan based on one poor comment. Fair and just doesn't do the mudslinging and dirt digging I don't believe. I'm not judge here, but if I were, I'd rule the latter inadmissible. The latter has little bearing on whether he was correct about society not being blamed most times, for atrocities of individuals.

    That has to always be returned to as the actual focus, because the latter is distraction and really doesn't do anything regarding the truthfulness of his former statement. You made a statement counterwise. This kind of discrediting language may be as bad as Reagan's comment. It casts him in a purposeful discrediting light much like backwards, wearing no shoes would convey.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  7. #3337
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,145
    Thanks
    3,946
    Thanked 8,472 Times in 4,948 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147843
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    As I've said in the other thread, it'd be a lot like me calling a Cajun an ignorant shirtless hillbilly hog: Not racist. It may be, but I can't read minds as to such intent. It is, yet, imho, wrong to throw that wilder accusation.
    But it's not like that, Lon. It's like he called a Africans monkeys, a racist trope so old it was uninspired in his grandfather's day. It's no mystery and yours is no real parallel.

    Again, it is racist toward a very specific kind of person.
    There are two potential responses. The first is, sure, black guys who tick him off. But then, the ticking off is only the event that allows him to express a sentiment that runs deeper because its premise is deeper.

    "If" you label to all peoples of a particular color, it is much farther reaching than proof can sustain.
    If you use it at all it's reaching farther than any proof can sustain.

    When Chris Rock, for instance, uses the "N-word" he uses it specifically and only for people of reprehensible behavior.
    I'm pretty sure I've heard him use it affectionately. A lot of black people use it among themselves. A very different thing.

    Again, large binning a frustration as if both are the same. I'm not sure of the context of the women who said she looked like a gorilla. Mad? Because she happened to actually resemble one with an expression? Making fun of her because of her color? What was the context?
    The context is that the woman used a racist trope. The rest is immaterial, but since you won't believe Hitler was a murderer until you see pictures of him jamming kids into an oven, here's some more background on the Tweet: the woman was the director of Clay County Development Corp. in West Virginia. She had no particular connection to the Obamas. She was a Trump supporter.

    After Trump had won the election she sent out the following Tweet, "It will be refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified First Lady in the White House. I'm tired of seeing a Ape in heels." In other words, leaving off her grammar, she's a racist. It might shock you, but there are a great many of them about these days and they're less in hiding.

    For instance, her mayor responded, "You just made my day, Pam." The mayor later resigned.


    Most things compared to Hitler seldom are. It is about as far reaching as trying to discredit Reagan's former statement by character assassination, as if one discounts the credibility of the other....
    I think it's hilarious to describe quoting someone as character assassination. It's more aptly character suicide.

    Absolutely. It was wrong. Why? Because calling any of God's people derogatory names, even in frustration lacks holiness.
    When you recognize Reagan's words were derogatory then you have to understand why they were. And when you understand that you understand my point, or you have a problem trying to define that why.

    I didn't seek to discredit Reagan based on one poor comment.
    To the contrary, you seem bent on removing all but a literary connection between him and the event.

    Fair and just doesn't do the mudslinging and dirt digging I don't believe. I'm not judge here...
    You just contradicted yourself. When you decide to characterize a thing as mudslinging and dirt digging--and what, precisely, are you tagging with that--you're standing in the robes.

    This kind of discrediting language may be as bad as Reagan's comment.
    What kind of language, particularly expressed? By which I mean literally set it out and then characterize it. Otherwise I can't know what you're speaking to.

    It casts him in a purposeful discrediting light much like backwards, wearing no shoes would convey.
    It puts him in the light he's given us to see him by. I quoted a man uttering a racist trope and you (and anyone who speaks the language) understands the language to be derogatory, you must then understand why it's derogatory. And if you understand that you have no foundation to object to the utterance being noted for what it is and the sentiment being attributed to the fellow who made that choice.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  8. #3338
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,961
    Thanks
    2,822
    Thanked 4,863 Times in 2,923 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147740
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    But it's not like that, Lon. It's like he called a Africans monkeys, a racist trope so old it was uninspired in his grandfather's day. It's no mystery and yours is no real parallel.


    There are two potential responses. The first is, sure, black guys who tick him off. But then, the ticking off is only the event that allows him to express a sentiment that runs deeper because its premise is deeper.
    Well, it could, but like you'd said, it could have been a throw-over from his father's day. Surely not appropriate nor God-honoring. My father called Hispanics "spicks' (not sure if that's derogatory or just truncated) and because he fought in the war, all orientals were dehumanized to a certain name. Now I've never called either group by that name and I have never been so mad at any particular that'd I'd repeat it.

    As you may realize and have come to know, I try to empathize for both groups. I was caught one day with this passage, in surprise: Matthew 5:23
    I'd always thought the offender needed to make it right, not the offended. While I do find Reagan's words inappropriately wrong, I 1) need to be careful not to try and read between the lines with accusation regardless of the 97 times it really was intended racism before it and 2) to try and balance problems like this. In a sense, "Reagan" was my father. I love my step-father and grew, because of him, to love Reagan, faults and all. This doesn't excuse the wrong behavior, but I did learn many god-honoring values and manners from my step-father.


    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    If you use it at all it's reaching farther than any proof can sustain.
    Well, again, as above, if there is even an inkling of doubt, I think it best to take the high road. Naive? Yes, I agree and will always agree (I think) with that assessment of me. It isn't because of not being there nor being in the trenches.

    Yet one more of the issues here is not that I'm insensitive, at least not to the point of turning a blind eye. That's not it. Rather, I think there is a difference between real tears and just a complaining spirit and I really don't want to empower the latter. We'd cave to every whim as a country at that point. Is this grounds for that? It might be, but does it 'have' to be, in this case?


    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    I'm pretty sure I've heard him use it affectionately. A lot of black people use it among themselves. A very different thing.
    He said he 'hate myself an N-.' He didn't limit it to a darker color, however.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
    The context is that the woman used a racist trope. The rest is immaterial, but since you won't believe Hitler was a murderer until you see pictures of him jamming kids into an oven, here's some more background on the Tweet: the woman was the director of Clay County Development Corp. in West Virginia. She had no particular connection to the Obamas. She was a Trump supporter.
    It isn't that I wouldn't believe it, it was that I have to have context in order to avoid inappropriate response.

    After Trump had won the election she sent out the following Tweet, "It will be refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified First Lady in the White House. I'm tired of seeing a Ape in heels." In other words, leaving off her grammar, she's a racist. It might shock you, but there are a great many of them about these days and they're less in hiding.


    Hurtful and totally unhelpful so it is just ugly angst. If she thinks all women of color are simian, she's a racist.
    For instance, her mayor responded, "You just made my day, Pam." The mayor later resigned.
    Same company. Bad company at that.

    I think it's hilarious to describe quoting someone as character assassination. It's more aptly character suicide.


    When you recognize Reagan's words were derogatory then you have to understand why they were. And when you understand that you understand my point, or you have a problem trying to define that why.
    I do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    To the contrary, you seem bent on removing all but a literary connection between him and the event.
    As I explained, it is about the context of the comment. It was 'over-against' a different comment. Actually a meaningful comment. Why? Discredit. Slam the messenger as disreputable by inference of a former poor discretion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    You just contradicted yourself. When you decide to characterize a thing as mudslinging and dirt digging--and what, precisely, are you tagging with that--you're standing in the robes.
    Not seeing how I'm standing in mud-slinging or dirt digging robes...


    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    What kind of language, particularly expressed? By which I mean literally set it out and then characterize it. Otherwise I can't know what you're speaking to.
    Bringing up one thing about a person to cast him or her in a poor light, when on the discussion table is an unrelated presentation concerning societal blame. I see it as problematic and it was one of two objections. The first talks about Reagan's comment scope, the second that we should be talking about it, in context of the former, at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    It puts him in the light he's given us to see him by. I quoted a man uttering a racist trope and you (and anyone who speaks the language) understands the language to be derogatory, you must then understand why it's derogatory. And if you understand that you have no foundation to object to the utterance being noted for what it is and the sentiment being attributed to the fellow who made that choice.
    The two objections:
    1) That it had nothing to do with the prior quote that should have been treated upon its own merit. I think, in court, it'd be inadmissible. As I said above, my father, certainly inappropriate and actually taught to be at the 'enemy' was a good man. His whole character wasn't ugly nor all things he said uglified by his poor term.
    2) It is yet not by necessity aimed at all, but 'a certain kind of.' Bad? Yes, but only because of the derogatory of the two or so applied to. It need not be applied to an entire race. It cannot be proved it was his intent and he is not around today to defend himself.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  9. #3339
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,145
    Thanks
    3,946
    Thanked 8,472 Times in 4,948 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147843
    Lon, I think I'm going to let this conversation play out in the other thread which is on the point, rather than continue to have it here, where I never really intended for prolonged, single topic anything to play out. I'm going to transfer my answer to a couple of points raised in your last response to that thread.

    LINK to that continuation.
    Last edited by Town Heretic; September 17th, 2019 at 10:42 AM.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  10. #3340
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,145
    Thanks
    3,946
    Thanked 8,472 Times in 4,948 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147843
    So, DeVos wants larger class sizes and fewer teachers? What she doesn't appear to know about education would overfill a classroom. Putting her in charge of that department was like putting an imbecile in charge of organizing a Mensa convention.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us