I defend allowing people speak how they want to speak.
-
Robert_A_Fett — 9 years ago(January 05, 2017 08:50 AM)
Why are some insults ok [for you] to use, but others' use of other insults are not? You suggested I was illiterate and referred to people as bastards. Both of those could, potentially, be horribly insulting to some people, yet you casually throw those out there, but flip the eff out over another insulting word. Do you see the problem here? You, and many others, are forcing your own sensitivities on others and engaging in censorship. I believe that is wrong, and the perpetually offended, professional victims have taken things to where we are now.
And you continue to supply your own interpretation of things as fact, as though I said you said something you didn't. I never used "can't". Again, though, I think that is a perfectly reasonable inference to draw from your over-reaction. You may not have said that he can't, but you certainly imply it. -
cecelia_lisbon — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 07:48 PM)
Oh, COME ON. People have taken it too far on both sides: the extreme oversensitive and the people who, because of that, don't believe ANYTHING should be considered offensive.
Nobody hates the absurd PC sickness more than me but that doesn't mean that some things aren't bad to say.
Did anybody fight anybody's right to say what they choose? No.
Did someone rightly call out somebody's disgusting use of a word? Yes.
Take your advice and deal with it. -
Hanz-Willhelm2 — 9 years ago(January 05, 2017 05:32 AM)
So using racial slurs to someone to mock their race is okay to you? Cause they'd just be speaking how they want to speak? How about mocking someone who's truly mentally challenged by calling them a retard to their face? No big deal? As long as they get to speak how they want?
Racial slurs? No one is using racial slurs.what the hell are you talking about?
Mocking someone who is mentally challenged to their face? What? No was is doing that, what kind of insane tangent are you going on?
The poster was talking about YOU! YOU are the only one being described as underdeveloped or the way you are acting or responding is being described. If you are offended than it should only be for how YOU are being talked to. Made up racial slurs or you cousin, who is not here nor is being talked about nor is being described has anything to do with this. Your logic is so flawed you can't even be taken seriously.
You nor your cousin own this word. Sorry for you, that you seem to think that you do own it and all of its uses and meanings. Even events or actions can be retarded, they don't even have to apply to people. "The army's advance was retarded" is a real sentence and totally acceptable, it doesn't even have to apply to mentally challenged people even though it also means that. Here are normal grammatically correct ways "to retard" can be used: to slow up especially by preventing or hindering advance or accomplishmentto delay academic progress by failure to promote.
Just because the mental development of your cousin (WHO IS NOT HERE AND THIS OTHER POSTER ISN'T TALKING NOR DESCRIBING!!!) is or has been retarded doesn't mean anything special about you. You don't get to latch on the this real term (many things can be retarded.movements, causes, advancements, all types of things included the mental development of people) and act like you own it and it can only apply to your cousin and act as if no one should ever use this real and legit term which can be a noun or a verb and act like if someone uses it to describe YOU than somehow your cousin has been wronged.
Totally ridiculous.
So this thread has nothing to do with your cousin, he/she wasn't ever brought up except by you, no one was racially slurred, all of your extreme made up claims brought up for no reason to somehow justify your faux outrage are just crap.
If this other poster feels you act mentally challenged and tells you so has nothing to do with your cousin. Things and people can be retarded, things, causes, movements and many other things can retard or be in a state or retardation and it is utter PC BS for you people to suddenly come along centuries after this legit word has existed and act as if no one is allowed to use it in modern speech anymore.
This word isn't bad. No one would condone using the specific, legit and grammatically correct word "retard" to ridicule or torment your cousin but since NO ONE IS nor HAS DONE that here than that situation doesn't apply and even if your cousin has ever been picked on by people and they used that word that still doesn't give them nor you any specific ownership of that word and it does not give you the right to expect others to not use it in other conversations.
Pretty lame of you to act offended on the behalf of your cousin that no one here knows and who no one is talking to or about when someone is talking about YOU.
YOU.
If you want to get upset because YOU have been insulted that's fine. DO NOT tell us that this real word can't be used to describe you.
Hey, I support you if you feel put down because that other poster has said YOU were acting retarded. That's all though. You are justified in feeling personally insulted. (FYI lots of insults flying on the internet). You have no right to bright up your cousin who may be in a state of mental retardation and act as if they have been insulted in any way or have ANYTHING to do with a conversation between you and another internet poster. Total BS.
Lamar Jackson for Heisman! -
Cursedchild13 — 9 years ago(January 05, 2017 08:34 AM)
Robert said he is defending being able to speak however you want. So I asked him if he would defend someone who used racial slurs or mocked a mentally challenged person because those people would also just be, "Saying what they want". Understand now? Not too complicated?
Your hypocrisy is amazing. So I can't call someone else out on using a disgusting word that is completely unnecessary, while also NEVER SAYING HE COULDN'T SAY IT, but YOU can tell me how can and cannot post? You can tell me what I have a right to say and feel?
You're a hypocrite. Take your own advice before dishing it out. It's also pretty funny that I can't be offended by a horrible word, but you are clearly offended by me being offended by it. You're screaming and ranting and wrote a full blown essay shrieking at me. -
Hanz-Willhelm2 — 9 years ago(January 05, 2017 08:56 AM)
It's not a horrible word. It's just a word.
Truthfully I can't even remember what you two were arguing about and what he said.just something like "you are acted retarded" or whatever. Then you went on your "you can't use the word retarded" crap and bringing up your cousin as if that has anything to do with anything.
I just reviewed it. It appears you weren't even involved. He didn't call you retard. He/she said "No retard, I'm saying money is a powerful aphrodisiac."
He wasn't even talking to you. You then go on the horrors of calling someone retard.
Me hypocrite? How so? You hypocrite? Definitely. Your whole gripe is he said retard. So what. You're being a hypocrite because you imply that it would be ok if he/she said "No idiot" or "No beep or "No dicksheet" or "No dummy" or "No Asswipe" or "No sheet for brains" or "No moron" or "No you fool".you chimed in as if something extraordinarily horrible occurred because they said "No retard".
That's political correct BS. He's not talking to a developmentally retarded person to begin with..that's the insult. Implying they are challenged when they are not.
Sure, it's mean to call people anything. I don't condone it even though I cuss out my fellow drivers under my breath on the interstate all the time. I'm just pointing out PC hypocrisy at the sudden outrage because when he chose to insult the other poster (not you) instead of choosing one of the other insult phrases of which I provided lots of possibilities in my above list he/she chose one of your PC "instant offense" words.
I might share your outrage if they were actually picking on and belittling a developmentally challenged person.
Anyway, fine be offended because he got annoyed and called someone a name in an argument. You are just a hypocrite because you imply they are suddenly more of an evil person and suddenly despicable because he/she typed "No retard" instead of "No dummy" or "No you moron". That's just stupid BS.
He/she didn't go from just being rude to suddenly being "disgusting" because of using "retard" instead of beep or "moron" or beep or "imbecile".
I very rightly noticed your outrage wasn't over defending the other poster and saying they didn't deserve to be called rude names. Your response was being he called a name you don't like and frequently referred to the name they used as disgusting. That's hypocrisy.
Just take up for the other poster by saying they don't deserve to be called anything or let them know they've lost the debate since they so quickly resorted to name calling. You only objected to your PC word being used.
That's just BS.
Lamar Jackson for Heisman! -
Cursedchild13 — 9 years ago(January 06, 2017 08:19 AM)
I wasn't talking to you at first either. I replied to someone else, and you jumped in. So you can jump into something where nobody was talking to you, but someone else can't do the same thing? Man, you just go out of your way to be a hypocrite.
-
cecelia_lisbon — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 08:00 PM)
You said that money is a powerful aphrodisiac to you.
That means it definitely is, always, and the "you" is referring to women.
To re-clarify the OP's question, she was asking if money may have been a factor in one woman's decision; not stating, but asking.
You responded by saying the answer is yes because it always is.
I really don't care what you think; I'm saying what you said.
Ok, I care a little what you think. It's a stupid, common, and frustrating stereotype. But in the end it does not affect me. -
reaseltbim — 9 years ago(January 03, 2017 01:55 PM)
it is scientifically proven women in general care more about wealth while men care more about attractiveness
http://www.medicaldaily.com/when-it-comes-finding-love-traits-men-and-women-look-long-term-partner-vary-wildly-353302 -
Painbow — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 08:32 AM)
So you're a closed minded fool who embraces the incredulity fallacy?
Good to know.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity -
reaseltbim — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 10:51 AM)
Ive never experienced seeing a rainbow in real life ever so therefore rainbows are fake
you see how childish and silly that sounds? You might as well say that because you never experience racism therefore racism doesn't exist like, how can you be so naive ? -
cecelia_lisbon — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 07:26 PM)
Do you know why I said that?
Because what use exactly is a study that says women are more interested in money, and how accurate could that "study" possibly be?
Oh boy, I now believe that women are more interested in money and men are more interested in looks because a study tells me. My thinking has been swayed, regardless of what I've experienced in all my interactions with real people in real life.
That's useful to my life.
Are you beginning to understand this? By "individual" level I mean what I see in the real world, with actual people, not a small sampleagain, how reliable would this little study's extrapolations really be considered?
My gosh, I couldn't care less if I tried. Thanks for trying to prove something to me, though. Didn't completely waste your energy at all. -
reaseltbim — 9 years ago(January 12, 2017 07:31 PM)
Is not even about women being interested in money itself but they are interested in a provider. A man that can provide.
The same way men want to pick a voluptuous beauiful woman because of offspring. This is wired in us from cavemen times.. both men and women have superficial preferences. Both genders tend to look for similar stuff.
Im sure some women have no problem dating a homelesd guy (maybe you are like that)
But MOST women wouldnt date a jobless guy living at home with their parents at 40.
Just like most women wont date shorter men than them. Im sure you might have no problem with dating a short broke guy but most women wouldnt do that -
Moonlighty — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 08:03 AM)
One study isn't the same as "scientifically proven." And you also can't use "women in general" as proof that every woman always does something just because a majority of those surveyed do.
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that I'll be over here looking through your stuff.
-
reaseltbim — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 10:53 AM)
it means that it is not just some crazy people online talking about something or making stuff up.
Everyone Knows guys tend to care more about looks and women tend to care more about wealth. the point of the link is that even REAL scientists went out of their way to do a study about this and even confirmed it from their one study.
You might say that one study is too small but that is something MOST people already knew. the only difference is that it is now backed up by actual data.
men are shallow in beauty and women are shallow in money. anyone alive could have tell you that.
But now we at least have scientists that looked at it, it is not just someone's opinion