The cost of raising fragile children

[Belsnickel]

(11-12-2015, 05:48 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries!

I read one time that the insult used there seems just cheeky and insignificant, but it is a genuine insult.

Mother was a hamster: Hamsters, like most rodents, are quite the sex machines. This is calling someone's mother loose or promiscuous.

Father smelt of elderberries: Wine can come from any fruit, or plant in general, really. Elderberry was/is a very common alternative to grape wine and during the middle ages it would have been more common for the peasants than grape wine. So this insult was calling the person's father a drunkard.

Not that any of this had anything to do with this thread, I just felt like putting it out there.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-12-2015, 12:58 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Calling middle easterners or any group ...  savages

Broad judgments of entire groups based upon their location on the map is a stereotype.  I've been to the Middle East and I can confirm they are not all savages and your statement is a false stereotype.

[GMDino]

(11-12-2015, 05:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I read one time that the insult used there seems just cheeky and insignificant, but it is a genuine insult.

Mother was a hamster: Hamsters, like most rodents, are quite the sex machines. This is calling someone's mother loose or promiscuous.

Father smelt of elderberries: Wine can come from any fruit, or plant in general, really. Elderberry was/is a very common alternative to grape wine and during the middle ages it would have been more common for the peasants than grape wine. So this insult was calling the person's father a drunkard.

Not that any of this had anything to do with this thread, I just felt like putting it out there.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-12-2015, 05:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I read one time that the insult used there seems just cheeky and insignificant, but it is a genuine insult.

Mother was a hamster: Hamsters, like most rodents, are quite the sex machines. This is calling someone's mother loose or promiscuous.

Father smelt of elderberries: Wine can come from any fruit, or plant in general, really. Elderberry was/is a very common alternative to grape wine and during the middle ages it would have been more common for the peasants than grape wine. So this insult was calling the person's father a drunkard.

Not that any of this had anything to do with this thread, I just felt like putting it out there.

Well, if anything Lucie is well armed with man's most potent weapon against the next carload of hooligans playing their music too loud in Florida.

[BmorePat87]

(11-12-2015, 12:58 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I never see why anyone needs to swear but that usually shows the type of person they are ....  

As for being called a racist ....  None of you know the definition of a racist and have gotten to the point of throwing out racist, sexist, etc for things that does not equal what true racism or any -ism.  

People who swear are more honest. I think being overtly racist says more about what type of person someone is. 

Also, we all have correctly used the word racist to describe you. Calling all people from Africa and the Middle East savage, uncivilized animals is racist. 

[fredtoast]

My dick burns when I get in a pissing contest.

Should I see a doctor?

[StLucieBengal]

(11-12-2015, 05:59 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Broad judgments of entire groups based upon their location on the map is a stereotype.  I've been to the Middle East and I can confirm they are not all savages and your statement is a false stereotype.

Easy to nit pick when you pick and choose what phrase to pull out and leave out the context. The context shows that I didn't use a broad stroke. Which I have been consistent. But please keep ignoring that fact.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-12-2015, 06:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: People who swear are more honest. I think being overtly racist says more about what type of person someone is. 

Also, we all have correctly used the word racist to describe you. Calling all people from Africa and the Middle East savage, uncivilized animals is racist. 

I have always said it was in the uncivilized parts of these areas. You all convienently leave that part out... But hey don't let the facts get in way of using a word wrongly.

[djs7685]

(11-12-2015, 09:55 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I have always said it was in the uncivilized parts of these areas. You all convienently leave that part out... But hey don't let the facts get in way of using a word wrongly.

lolracist

[*bfine32*]

(11-12-2015, 06:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Also, we all have correctly used the word racist to describe you.  Calling all people from Africa and the Middle East savage, uncivilized animals is racist. 

What race are the vast majority of folks from the Middle East?

[BmorePat87]

(11-12-2015, 09:55 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I have always said it was in the uncivilized parts of these areas.   You all convienently leave that part out... But hey don't let the facts get in way of using a word wrongly.

We've been through this and I've quoted the posts. At this point you're just being dishonest. 

[GMDino]

(11-12-2015, 10:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What race are the vast majority of folks from the Middle East?

Human?

[BmorePat87]

(11-12-2015, 10:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What race are the vast majority of folks from the Middle East?

Good question. 

I can give 3 different answers. If I wanted to use A scientific definition, I'd say caucasiod/white/Caucasian. Most from Europe, Northern Africa, and the Middle East fall in this category.

If I want to give a sociological/anthropological answer, I'd say Semite. 

If I wanted to use the more laymen definition of race, I'd say Arab, since ethnicity is often used interchangeably. 

Since I teach sociology, I prefer Semite, though Arab may be more acceptable in this setting. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-12-2015, 11:10 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Good question. 

I can give 3 different answers. If I wanted to use A scientific definition, I'd say caucasiod/white/Caucasian. Most from Europe, Northern Africa, and the Middle East fall in this category.

If I want to give a sociological/anthropological answer, I'd say Semite. 

If I wanted to use the more laymen definition of race, I'd say Arab, since ethnicity is often used interchangeably. 

Since I teach sociology, I prefer Semite, though Arab may be more acceptable in this setting. 

Well you can give as many answers as you want; however, only one of them is correct. 

Here's a hint....It's the scientific one. 

WTS, you could look like a total idiot and say human

[Belsnickel]

(11-12-2015, 11:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well you can give as many answers as you want; however, only one of them is correct. 

Here's a hint....It's the scientific one. 

WTS, you could look like a total idiot and say human

That's interesting that you say only one of them is right when experts in sociological, anthropological, biological, and other fields can't agree at this time. Not to mention the changing nature of what defines race over time.

[*bfine32*]

(11-12-2015, 11:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's interesting that you say only one of them is right when experts in sociological, anthropological, biological, and other fields can't agree at this time. Not to mention the changing nature of what defines race over time.

Well I guess we could ignore science. 

What race do you say folks from the middle-east are?

[Belsnickel]

(11-12-2015, 11:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well I guess we could ignore science. 

What race do you say folks from the middle-east are?

It's not ignoring science at all. Are not anthropology and sociology branches of science? The argument put forth there is that race is a social construct only loosely tied to biology. So, if I am ignoring science as you put it, I am doing so in a lesser fashion as I recognize the different sciences and how race is viewed and do not solely focus on one.

As for what race they are in the middle east, there are many answers. But you don't want to hear that and will merely claim I am trying to avoid answering the question. In truth, I just don't care enough to bother looking up and going into all the details only for it to be ignored simply out of obstinacy.

[*bfine32*]

(11-12-2015, 11:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's not ignoring science at all. Are not anthropology and sociology branches of science? The argument put forth there is that race is a social construct only loosely tied to biology. So, if I am ignoring science as you put it, I am doing so in a lesser fashion as I recognize the different sciences and how race is viewed and do not solely focus on one.

As for what race they are in the middle east, there are many answers. But you don't want to hear that and will merely claim I am trying to avoid answering the question. In truth, I just don't care enough to bother looking up and going into all the details only for it to be ignored simply out of obstinacy.

Hey pat called it scientific, not me; I was merely supporting him. So their race is ambiguous? Why not just go by what US census bureau classifies them as?
http://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html

The whole point was to point to the irony of "correctly" calling someone a racist because they slur those of their own race.

You don't have to look it up; what race do you consider the majority of the population from Middle-East and those whose ancestry comes from the region?


  

[BmorePat87]

(11-12-2015, 11:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well you can give as many answers as you want; however, only one of them is correct. 

Here's a hint....It's the scientific one. 

WTS, you could look like a total idiot and say human

(11-12-2015, 11:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's interesting that you say only one of them is right when experts in sociological, anthropological, biological, and other fields can't agree at this time. Not to mention the changing nature of what defines race over time.

(11-12-2015, 11:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well I guess we could ignore science. 

What race do you say folks from the middle-east are?

That's an incredibly silly response to Matt. He is absolutely correct in that the social sciences and physical sciences use the term differently and do not have an agreed upon definition. 

They use the term very differently and using one definition is by no means "ignoring science". Hell, I've read Bill Nye and other scientists argue that race is a social construct. 

If we're discussing race in relation to the concept of racism, I'd argue that the scientific definition is the least relevant one. Unless we want to ignore social science...

[*bfine32*]

(11-12-2015, 11:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That's an incredibly silly response to Matt. He is absolutely correct in that the social sciences and physical sciences use the term differently and do not have an agreed upon definition. 

They use the term very differently and using one definition is by no means "ignoring science". Hell, I've read Bill Nye and other scientists argue that race is a social construct. 

If we're discussing race in relation to the concept of racism, I'd argue that the scientific definition is the least relevant one. Unless we want to ignore social science...

So blacks and whites can be the same race if they share a social construct? 

But I guess if Bill Nye said it.....case closed.