Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 107   Go Down

Author Topic: The American Constitution  (Read 82773 times)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17835
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #580 on: June 19, 2019, 01:53:11 pm »

Really? I though that the number of individual votes was agaist him...

Yes, Rob, the American public hates him ;)

Quote
CNN anchor Chris Cuomo, often known for challenging President Trump and his associates, pointed out on Tuesday that Democrats aren't pulling in the same crowd sizes as the president.
"Why don't the Democrats pack the stadiums the way the president does?"...

His comments came on the same night that Trump drew a massive crowd for hisre-election rally in Orlando, Florida. Some Trump supporters even arrived 40 hours in advance, lining up for a chance to see Trump at the rally.
Fox News producers also reported that Trump appeared to fill the Orlando Amway Centerwhich holds about 20,000 people. That would have dwarfed former President Barack Obama's crowd size of 14,000 during his reelection announcement in 2012. In less than 24 hours after Trump's re-election announcement, he also raised a record $24.8 million.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17835
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #581 on: June 19, 2019, 02:23:25 pm »

... Please don't reply to this with another "What about Obama, or what about Hilary...

Ok, you have a point, but just one more, please? Pretty please?

Jeremy Roussak

  • On Probation
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #582 on: June 19, 2019, 02:54:37 pm »

I've already notified the moderator but just want to publicly call out someone who posts on this forum for expropriating a copyrighted image into his profile.  I don't find this in the least bit funny.

Then you lack a sense of humour. It was a joke. Obviously.

Not a selfban, but a ban is in order.

Nonsense.

Jeremy
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8901
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #583 on: June 19, 2019, 03:34:08 pm »

Then you lack a sense of humour. It was a joke. Obviously.

And one in extremely bad taste.

Quote
Nonsense.

I take copyright issues very seriously, and even the slightest attempts at personality theft or impersonation of others on this forum need to be nipped in the bud, IMHO of course.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #584 on: June 19, 2019, 03:51:02 pm »

Then you lack a sense of humour. It was a joke. Obviously.

Jeremy
Nice response from a lawyer who ought to have respect for intellectual property.  Perhaps they don't take these things seriously in England but then I've always found English humour wanting ever since Monty Python called it quits.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17835
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #585 on: June 19, 2019, 04:33:59 pm »

... I take copyright issues very seriously...

Me too. Ever heard of the Fair Use doctrine? If not:

Quote
In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner.

https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3922
    • Robert's Photos
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #586 on: June 19, 2019, 05:07:23 pm »

Then you lack a sense of humour. It was a joke. Obviously.

Nonsense.

Jeremy


In the past few days, Slobodan has used the term "pompous pricks" in reference to other forums participants. He used the word "pompous" in another context but I can't find it right now. He used the expression "retard" in two posts regarding AOC. Then he fiddled with someone's avatar.

I, for one, do not think that he should be banned. Having worked in software development in a previous life, you have to go a LOT farther than that to offend my sensibilities. This is partly why I usually stay out of discussions concerning appropriate public (forum) behaviour, as I am able to tolerate much more than the average person and therefore have nothing much useful to say in these matters.

The only comment I make is that the bar does seem to be lower these days.

Logged
--
Robert

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17835
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #587 on: June 19, 2019, 05:28:03 pm »

...The only comment I make is that the bar does seem to be lower these days.

I've been just going with the flow, Robert. We heard recently, on this forum, that the term "ass" (as in "don't be an ass") is acceptable and has much less derogatory meaning, especially in the UK, than I expected. I also get PMs when people think it is ok to go further and call me "arshole." I assumed that a term for the 180 degrees from an arshole is ok then.

I am just blending in, you see. On the other hand, I didn't know that "pompous" is a prohibited word. Nor "retard" for a public figure.

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4834
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #588 on: June 19, 2019, 05:34:38 pm »

Nor "retard" for a public figure.
It just depends on how offensive you are comfortable being.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17835
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #589 on: June 19, 2019, 05:38:04 pm »

It just depends on how offensive you are comfortable being.

As offensive as others are when referring to the sitting President.

James Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2292
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #590 on: June 19, 2019, 05:48:32 pm »


I, for one, do not think that he should be banned. Having worked in software development in a previous life, you have to go a LOT farther than that to offend my sensibilities. This is partly why I usually stay out of discussions concerning appropriate public (forum) behaviour, as I am able to tolerate much more than the average person and therefore have nothing much useful to say in these matters.

Agreed

The only comment I make is that the bar does seem to be lower these days.

eh.. it ebbs and flows.  :D.   Since the subject is the American Constitution, I can assure everyone that the language used by the Founders as they debated the document in question was not one iota less pointed that what's being thrown about here, and to our credit, no one has yet demanded satisfaction of another ;)
Logged

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3922
    • Robert's Photos
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #591 on: June 19, 2019, 06:07:10 pm »

... no one has yet demanded satisfaction of another ;)

That would be going a bit far.
Logged
--
Robert

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3922
    • Robert's Photos
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #592 on: June 19, 2019, 06:34:03 pm »

I've been just going with the flow, Robert. We heard recently, on this forum, that the term "ass" (as in "don't be an ass") is acceptable and has much less derogatory meaning, especially in the UK, than I expected. I also get PMs when people think it is ok to go further and call me "arshole." I assumed that a term for the 180 degrees from an arshole is ok then.

I am just blending in, you see. On the other hand, I didn't know that "pompous" is a prohibited word. Nor "retard" for a public figure.

Sad to hear about private messages with that tone, but at least they were private messages. So as far as that goes, it doesn't concern public forum etiquette (unless there is an interdiction about that as well in the forum rules) nor does it concern any of the rest of us.

I am not concerned with prohibited words as such. George Carlin already visited this. In the long run what people choose to write will only reflect on them. If you want to call someone pompous, go ahead, but "pompous prick" slides up pretty closely up against personal insult. You can do that, and the forum admins can allow it, up to you guys, but it may have the effect in the long run of driving people away from forum participation, which defeats the purpose of having forums.

Personally, I find the use of the word "retard" rather deliberately offensive, but as others point out that's your schtick. I assume you use it to piss off "liberals" and "lefties". That's not a political correctness argument, it's just bad taste, imo. Whatever point you were trying to get across about AOC by using the word was devalued by using the word. But you can do that if you want, no skin off my nose.

In another post above you raised concerns about how people speak about the current President. I understand why people would want some decorum there, in principle, but as I've said before, that ship sailed a long time ago. After referring to an entire country as rapists and drug dealers, tossing paper towels at a press conference re the hurricane in Puerto Rico and many many other other examples, requiring or even just hoping for decorum towards the guy just isn't going to happen. He set that tone and seems to revel in it, so be it. He has never been a subtle guy, so what's the point of insulting him in a subtle manner?  :)

When people call your president names, it's often in the context of pointing out something he said or did, but not always. You have referred to AOC and her policies/beliefs in a derogatory manner a few times, but I don't remember (could easily have missed a thread) a discussion of them, so at least readers would have some context of why you think that. As it stands, you simply called her names. That doesn't bother me much, as you say, she's a public figure and it seems to go with that territory these days, but repeated name calling alone won't carry much weight. 

Logged
--
Robert

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #593 on: June 19, 2019, 07:53:42 pm »


Personally, I find the use of the word "retard" rather deliberately offensive, but as others point out that's your schtick. I assume you use it to piss off "liberals" and "lefties". That's not a political correctness argument, it's just bad taste, imo. Whatever point you were trying to get across about AOC by using the word was devalued by using the word. But you can do that if you want, no skin off my nose.
My daughter is a special education teacher working in a title one elementary school.  Many of her students have challenges and this term has cavalierly been used in the past to refer to such students.  It is indeed offensive and should have no place in civil discussion.  If the person who used this wanted to be taken seriously, he/she would avoid such pejorative language.
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4921
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #594 on: June 19, 2019, 08:21:34 pm »

My daughter is a special education teacher working in a title one elementary school.  Many of her students have challenges and this term has cavalierly been used in the past to refer to such students.  It is indeed offensive and should have no place in civil discussion.  If the person who used this wanted to be taken seriously, he/she would avoid such pejorative language.

The problem I have with saying that the word retard is offensive (as opposed to saying that the way in which someone may use it is offensive) is that it was not offensive when it was first developed, but only developed that negative connotation after students started using it to make fun of other students.  Same thing with moron; it was a medical term originally and only became negative after people started using it that way. 

So now we cant use retard anymore to describe people who are mentally retarded, and instead have to say mentally challenged.  Only now kids are using mentally challenged to make fun of someone.  So in another 20 years we will be at the same place with mentally challenged.  What word will we use then I have to wonder?  ???
« Last Edit: June 19, 2019, 08:28:54 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17835
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #595 on: June 19, 2019, 08:39:13 pm »

“Idiot” is a medical term as well.

When I use the word “retard” to describe someone, it is actually a compliment to those who are medically mentally retarded.

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #596 on: June 19, 2019, 09:56:56 pm »

The problem I have with saying that the word retard is offensive (as opposed to saying that the way in which someone may use it is offensive) is that it was not offensive when it was first developed, but only developed that negative connotation after students started using it to make fun of other students.  Same thing with moron; it was a medical term originally and only became negative after people started using it that way. 

So now we cant use retard anymore to describe people who are mentally retarded, and instead have to say mentally challenged.  Only now kids are using mentally challenged to make fun of someone.  So in another 20 years we will be at the same place with mentally challenged.  What word will we use then I have to wonder?  ???
The American language is full of pejoratives that are no longer in common use as well as some mainstream terms that are not frowned upon but are usually not used (I'm sure that the primary example of an American minority is familiar to everyone and does not need to be repeated here).  The language and usage is constantly evolving and what once might have been ill-usage is no longer.  You draw and example between retard and moron but these terms had different patterns of evolution.  Today 'moronic' is in common use and one often finds it in crossword puzzles, the same cannot be said for retard.  'Mentally challenged' is an umbrella word that can cover lots of things.  Comedians often come up with zinger 'dumb' jokes which are often funny and intended to poke fun.  The same cannot be said about the use of the word 'retard' to describe someone.  You really need to examine the nuance.
Logged

Jeremy Roussak

  • On Probation
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #597 on: June 20, 2019, 03:18:48 am »

And one in extremely bad taste.

I don't agree. Look at the context. In any event, taste is subjective.

I take copyright issues very seriously, and even the slightest attempts at personality theft or impersonation of others on this forum need to be nipped in the bud, IMHO of course.

Impersonation? What drivel. Slobodan's name appeared over the snapshot. Immediate resort to hyperbole does nothing to advance an argument.

Nice response from a lawyer who ought to have respect for intellectual property.  Perhaps they don't take these things seriously in England but then I've always found English humour wanting ever since Monty Python called it quits.

Whose "intellectual property"? It's a snapshot of someone who may or may not be you, taken by someone who almost certainly wasn't you and who may or may not have been working at the time for someone who as a result may own the copyright.

For what it's worth, my own view is that Slobodan's transient use of the photograph fell very comfortably within "fair use". There was no infringement of copyright.

Your view of English humour is of immense concern to me.

Jeremy
Logged

Jeremy Roussak

  • On Probation
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #598 on: June 20, 2019, 03:20:44 am »

So now we cant use retard anymore to describe people who are mentally retarded, and instead have to say mentally challenged.  Only now kids are using mentally challenged to make fun of someone.  So in another 20 years we will be at the same place with mentally challenged.  What word will we use then I have to wonder?  ???

We already are: the currently approved euphemism is "with learning difficulties".

Jeremy
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2510
Re: The American Constitution
« Reply #599 on: June 20, 2019, 03:23:00 am »

What drivel.

Is this a comment as a forum member, or as a moderator?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 107   Go Up