I think most people were upset because the skit was Not Funny. It stereotypes gunowners as dumb redneck bible thumpers, when the reality is that a majority of gun owners are non-white. So not only is it offensive, not funny, but also innacurate. Just imagine if he played to a different stereotype, wore black face and called all non-registered gun owners barbaric, ignorant black men. Then would you cross bearing douches deem it appropriate for people to feel offended?

Some fun, huh, Baambi?

I guess in this case, the deer is the thumper.

Yeah well, I'd like to borrow one of my favorite turns-of-phrase from those irritating Bible-thumpers there donut, a reminiscient quip applicable to your patently smug, ambivalent statement:

"Satan's greatest trick..is convincing the world he does NOT exist..."

uhhhh, Big Pharma is as close to fucking Satan that earthlings will ever see again until the next Holocaust my friend...

>> ^Thumper:

Finally some good shots of this storm...the dialogue is a little odd. Double Rainbow?
Here's your Double Rainbow

Yankees!
>> ^Thumper:

the dialogue is a little odd. Double Rainbow?

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^RFlagg:
Problem is, they say the reason we were doing better was because we had God in schools, then we took him out of the schools and everything else... everything comes to how god was involved back then and less so now therefore we are paying the punishment of not having god in our lives... never mind how well many of the more atheist countries are doing (they think atheist countries are more like the old USSR)...
>> ^Fairbs:
Something most Republicans can't grasp is our country is better off when the rich are taxed more. 40 years ago, taxes on capital gains were 80%, but now Romney feels he's taxed too much at 15.


The argument isn't really about countries that are more atheist versus countries that aren't. It's that the United States has uniquely been a Christian nation since its founding. We are one nation, under God. Most people don't understand what that means; they think it is archaic when it is really the most important founding principle we have. The rapid decline in civil society has to do with the fact that, for the first time generations of Americans are growing up without the judeo-christian ethic being instilled in them from society, especially from their schools. And what we've seen since 1963 is a dramatic increase in the rate of violent crimes, teen pregnancy, STDs, the divorce rate, broken families, drug use, etc..the list goes on. There are the top 7 problems we had in our schools according to government records in 1940 vs 1990:
1940
1. Talking out of turn
2. Chewing Gum
3. Making noise
4. Running in the Halls
5. Cutting in Line
6. Dress-code violations
7. Littering
1990
1. Drug abuse
2. Alcohol abuse
3. Pregnancy
4. Suicide
5. Rape
6. Robbery
7. Assault
So, the argument is really that, we as a society have collectively turned our back on God, and therefore God has also turned His back on us. The principle is, you reap what you sow, and that's exactly what is going on right now. That's why this nation is facing calamity after calamity, because we have lost our way and we refuse to repent and turn back to our Creator.


You are picking and choosing your details man. I think you are also getting your 'facts' about the 40's and 50's from tv shows and movies and using them to spin your idea of 'how golden and free of crime America was before we turned out back on God.' And what about the decades before the 50's, certainly we hadn't 'turned away from god', so how do you explain the debauchery of the 20's, the turn of the century 'robber barons' that lived in luxury while their sweat-shops were worked by the masses of poor and children. The herione gangs and the waves of violence around 1910, 15.

It is really funny how some people (mostly white, older and male) see the 40's and 50's as this shining era of godly love, no crime and family harmony. It was all like 'leave it to beaver'. Dad made the big bucks, mom stayed at home and the most the kids ever got into trouble was when they broke a neighbors window. Yes, generally crime rates were low in the 40's and 50's but you cant attribute that to people 'having the fear of god' back then but skip over times that had just as much, if not even more religious fervor but also plenty of social upheaval and crime. Point of fact crime rates right now in most states are at historical lows, nearly to the levels of the 50's, but you still see murders every day. The information age has changed these things. In the 50's the only news you had was local. You might never have heard about some crime rave in another state.

Other things can attribute to the lower crime rates of those years. How many young men were serving in WWII during the 40's, that certainly would account for a drop in crime rates. And as to the 50's, the threat of nuclear war was constant. 'In God We Trust' wasn't added to money in the mid 50's because it was a particularly religious era, but rather because if the threat of communism. The term used to denote a healthy and proper family in the 50's wasn't coined the 'nuclear' family for nothing.

Last I'd like to point out that the US was 'never' designed as a Christian Nation and has only receive that monicker in the last number of years. I know bible-thumpers and hard-right politicians would have you think, hell have even changed school books, to wipe out ideas like the simple fact that many of the founding fathers wanted nothing to do with religion, though certainly not all. You can twist the words of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson all you want, but they above all abhorred the idea of religion influencing politics. This is not to say that they were all anti-religion, many advocated religion as a personal foundation of morality, but to hear modern republicans suggest they wanted Christianity to be the basis of the constitution and this country, they would be rolling over in their graves.

>> ^Thumper:

Need more....
http://www.stickpage.com/ has shitload more.

I guess it's necessary to remind the participants in this debate that I am not defending obesity as normal or non-problematic; what I am doing is criticising the letter-writer's behaviour and commending the way it was called out as an example (and not as a personal attack on the writer; anonymity, remember?)

@SDGundamX You're right, we do disagree once again. Comparing sn being pressured into being unhealthily skinny and sn drink-driving or sexually harassing others is absurd, no need to belabour that point. The target of criticism in the model's case should be the fashion industry (and that of women's magazines, etc) which idolises such unhealthiness, not a cog in the system (who probably has enough trouble with it already). It's different if you are a personal friend to that person, as @Thumper thoughtfully pointed out above. Otherwise, it's a bit like criticising an Afghanistan vet for fighting an unjust war (once again, possible if you are that person's friend/family). As for it being a "private" email, I already argued amply as to why that doesn't fly.

@scannex Perhaps there was a misunderstanding between us, I don't know. What seems clear to me is that one must consider the difference between having a behavioural problem and exhibiting the behaviour of that problem. Example: alcoholism is a behavioural problem, the behaviour being excessive drinking. The difference of course is that some behavioural problems result in a constant visual marker (e.g. being fat), and that that marker does not always point back to a behavioural problem (e.g. genetics, mental health problems, etc), therefore assumptions should not be made. Moreover, That marker does not induce nor even condone the behavioural problem. Hope that clears things up.

@ReverendTed Hello there late comer! See the above for my response to your comment.

>> ^scannex:

Certainly didn't take you long to resort to personal attacks. Sorry I annoy you.
Congratulations, you annoy me.
1. Your connection is ridiculous. I must somehow be privileged or sexist to have this view?
2. I guess I cannot figure out your point, since I only directly dealt with #3 in your post it sure sounded like "because she cannot turn off being fat, its nothing like smoking". Your other points are you soapboxing about how you want the world to be and are not something I am likely to convince you about.
3. She needs to binge eat in front of the camera to draw the conclusion that she overeats? I completely disagree with you that SHE is in a situation where being overweight is a necessity.
A point I will concede to: It is WILDLY more expensive to healthily than to eat garbage. Being on a local TV program however makes me think she is likely able to afford healthier choices.
3b. Please feel free to provide some hard numbers on the incidence of genetic obesity
4. I redefined behavior following you redefining behavior as essentially a state one can inhibit in the presence of others. Obesity is a behavioral problem. Feel free to use meriam webster if that link is insufficient for you.
5. I didn't ignore 1, and 2 of your post I just didn't reply to it. I don't agree with you. Period. It is tangential to our argument and while valid arguments will further take it off topic.I will say that you ascribe such heightened value to everything it makes me think you are on the brink of a nervous breakdown.
6. What do I care if what she said was not reprehensible? To be blunt, she cites this as a bullying event. It isn't. That is inaccurate. Its becoming the first warcry of those with hurt feelings. My main problem with it is that doing this has the effect of DEVALUING the term, and often when that happens people become desensitized to it. Not every statement is bullying. Not everyone who hears a negative utterance was bullied.
7. One said wasn't saying Shh. One side was privately making a statment. Voicing an opinion, however dickish. Was it his place? Nope. Was it nice? Nope. Was it his right? Yes if you live in any of the 50 states it is his right. A lot of assholes do things with words, like the westboro baptist church and gay soldiers funerals. When it reaches a point of bullying things need to be done (and in the westboro case something WAS done to stop them). That's a good thing. That differentiation between systemic hatred and one guy writing an email NEEDS to be made clear.
Last to your example of Chris Christie, people are BRUTAL to that guy. He gets his share of mail I assure you. People give him shit for the exact same reason of being int he public eye as well. The sexist/privelaged thing is just wild speculation on your part that only makes an angry situation seem angrier. That says a lot about you and your mindset, too.
>> ^hpqp:

Words



It's a fair point to call me out on making presumptions about you and linking your comments to those I've been reading elsewhere; my apologies for that.

You cannot dissociate my first 2 points above from the third: you do not go telling strangers, even in a passive-aggressive way, that they are unfit to be in the public eye. For someone so quick to see personal attacks in comments about you, you seem rather impervious to those in the letter you defend (then again, 'tis true that I'm not very subtle when pissed). The real tangent, one I should probably not have given so much weight to, is whether or not obesity is something one can show/not show and induce simply by showing it (my argument remains valid, btw, it's just not so important as to repeat it all over, and your strawmen are so obvious as to no longer require pointing out).

Your point as I understand it is twofold: the letter-writer has a right to send the anchor his personal criticism and is right to do so. I only agree with the first part; he has a right to do so ((so long) as it is not harassment/threats), but she is also right to call him out for it, and point out that such behaviour is wrong, and that it participates in a culture that tolerates bullying, by letting people think it's fine to say whatever they think to whomever without questioning whether it might be hurtful or not. And nobody's saying that something like this is as bad as WBC-style bullying or systemic racist bs, just like nobody would argue that a female politician being meowed in a session by a colleague is as bad a case of sexism/misogyny as a continually harassed or beaten wife, for example. They are, however, on a spectrum with a unifying underlying belief, namely "I can and should voice my opinions/(dis)tastes about others without taking how it affects them into consideration (and society has nothing to say about it)".

The reason I projected the whole sexism/privilege thing on your comments is because they contain the same "it's harmless/no big deal" and "just poor me self-victimisation" and "what's with making a private event/exchange public?" and "you're trampling his rights!" dismissals. It was wrong of me to do so, but at least now you can understand why I did.

Speaking of projection, presumption and personal attacks, you sure are quick to jump to (and stick to) the conclusion that the anchor is overweight because she has poor lifestyle choices (the same assumptions behind the letter), which is why I (and @bmacs27) went on the tangent of "there's-more-to-obesity-than-being-a-lazy-junkfood-gobler". The assumption that an overweight person is that way because s/he choses so is insulting and ignorant in and of itself, the same way the GOP's "poor people are that way cuz they're lazy moochers who don't pull themselves up by the bootstraps" is.

As for Chris Christie, I refer to point 1) of my comment above: public denunciation all 'round!

I hope that has clarified my argument. Otherwise, I refer you to @Thumper's comments, less contentious than mine and with which I wholly agree.

Yes, thank you, you put it so much simpler than I do!
In reply to this comment by Thumper:
Your views are inconsistent because you're suggesting her obesity is somehow impactful on others. If it's not that then your suggesting you're concerned for her health. If you're so concerned for her health (or others) then what about her mental health (or ours)? Arguably the most important form of health. You already admitted there is no polite way to tell a stranger that is probably already aware, that their weight is a health concern. I don't see how promoting forwardness with disregard to one's reaction/ feelings is any bit healthier. Not to mention the whole bully awareness month - which this is just a guess, but, doesn't that specifically entail "we" as a society passing stronger consideration for others feelings?

This is where we need to draw the line on the whole obesity/ drug addict comparison. There is NO NEED to throw tough love at an overweight person. Even if you succeed in pushing them to lose weight - you're changing the very foundation of personal relationships. Where does the bully draw the line at school? "Stop being so dorky?". Oh and I'm not a fan of letting our children carry such moral burdens. Their parents should lead by example. Lets not build a world where people push one another into choices even if they are good for them. Let's let freewill be freewill. If you really want to make a difference - befriend them, get close to them, within the "YOU can say that to me" walls. Actually give a shit about the person and not the idea of people. Stop treating that woman like an negative average in a large container and more like a PERSON.

Problem solved. Become their friend - follow time-tested relationship rules and then, and only then, can you relay such private and impactful information to them.

>> ^scannex:

I am not sure how my argument is nihilistic at all.
I am not sure what mold you think I am promoting, aside from not being in a state which has been, by all available science, deemed to be u healthy. (read: not obese)
I am happy to address where you think my view is inconsistent, can you please elaborate?
Re feeling: I think that is fair, to a point. But to me, the spectacle this woman made of herself for someone writing her a private communique over the internet does not warrant ANYWHERE near this attention.
She chose to shine a spotlight on something perfectly hidden, for the purpose of, I don't know... you tell me? To stop imaginary bullying (in her case explicitly here)? To not feel bad about being overweight? I really don't know anymore. Its a bizarre reaction to wantonly make a spectacle of someone suggesting you lose weight.
You pretend to care for the health of others yet there is a perverse nihilistic undertone to your entire argument. The only thing in this for you is to point out that "people" should fit a mold that you and your constituents have deemed appropriate. Which furthers strengthens the overall bizarre and inconsistent view you're slinging. Shouldn't your dismissal of common morals/ sensibilities completely free you up from trying to impress or coincide with a particular group? The thing that bugs me the most is that you seem to completely ignore this person's feelings. It's as if, for the purposes of your argument having a body you have obfuscated her feelings or anyone else's for that matter.

My point is why do you feel that something you would not do in front of others towards another person is somehow justified in private? It's not, it's cowardice. The fact is she doesn't know him. So even if he pulled her aside somewhere out in public and said it in private it would not be correct. I don't think he would have done that either. I mean in what situation does a stranger pull someone aside and tell them this? I can't think of one. He's hiding behind the internet. He's trolling her. It doesn't matter what words he chose to express this to her he would not have done this face to face *because for the fear of what would happen. So without that fear he act's on it and completely trolls her. That is not normal human behavior. It's internet bullying. There are further examples of where you would not do this EVEN on the internet. For instance, you would not write the creator of this site and express disapproval of their appearance now would you? The moment there is a repercussion people stay inline. It's the fact that there was no repercussion that allowed him to be so crass towards her. >> ^scannex:

Yup Thumper you're right. There is no polite way to say it.
Your comparison over "doing it in public" however is kinda... completely ignoring what happened here?
He did it privately over email.
You need to understand that.
He didn't try and publicly shame her. He doesn't want anything from her to enrich himself. He did not bully her.
What is "nice" to you isn't relevant. Hell, I will totally AGREE that it isn't nice. Doesn't make it worth all this hooplah that she created either by making it public, and it doesn't make being obese a good thing.

Yup Thumper you're right. There is no polite way to say it.
Your comparison over "doing it in public" however is kinda... completely ignoring what happened here?
He did it privately over email.
You need to understand that.

He didn't try and publicly shame her. He doesn't want anything from her to enrich himself. He did not bully her.

What is "nice" to you isn't relevant. Hell, I will totally AGREE that it isn't nice. Doesn't make it worth all this hooplah that she created either by making it public, and it doesn't make being obese a good thing.

There is no polite way to say that to someone. The fact still remains you WILL NOT be saying that to anyone in public and to suggest that you would is a lie. The point is that even if I didn't kick the persons ass they would be told to leave and any normal person including the establishments owners would also follow along in removing that person from the property. The police would not take pity on someone who his so crass in harassing the individual. I bet the law would even hold up that the person did in fact harass them. "Yes judge I did in fact politely encourage them to be less heavy". You are a fool to think anyone would not consider that to be rude/ crass/ completely inappropriate. Which is why you would never say it in public and you know you wouldn't. >> ^scannex:

>> ^Thumper:
Here's the problem...He would never have said that shit in public to her face around other people. So how is it okay for him to say it to her in private? If I heard someone say some crap like that to someone standing next to me I would beat their ass right in front of everyone. You can turn this in any direction and it would still apply. If one was very skinny and someone crudely pointed this out around others it would be awkward to the point of physical repercussions.
I don't know who you people are but let me tell you. You will never get away with what that guy said in his letter in public. The internet lets people bullshit so much but the fact is your pathetic notions are crass and you would be outed so quickly in the real world.
As she mentioned he is not her friend or family. He's a coward who hide in the email shadows. The whole point of her pointing this out is because it's national bully month to create awareness for bullying in school. A serious problem to any parent. In the real world you don't get away with comments like that - his ass would get kicked. Then where ever he said it he would be black listed and never allowed to return.

That sure is nice of you to go to prison for a stranger over something another stranger said in almost as constructive a way as possible.
It makes you sound like a violent psychopath.
He didn't bully her. He didn't show up at her office with a "Hey fatty!" sign. He didn't chase her down in other venues, he didn't persist in any way in fact.
You are applying the term bullying where it is wholly inappropriate.

>> ^Thumper:

Here's the problem...He would never have said that shit in public to her face around other people. So how is it okay for him to say it to her in private? If I heard someone say some crap like that to someone standing next to me I would beat their ass right in front of everyone. You can turn this in any direction and it would still apply. If one was very skinny and someone crudely pointed this out around others it would be awkward to the point of physical repercussions.
I don't know who you people are but let me tell you. You will never get away with what that guy said in his letter in public. The internet lets people bullshit so much but the fact is your pathetic notions are crass and you would be outed so quickly in the real world.
As she mentioned he is not her friend or family. He's a coward who hide in the email shadows. The whole point of her pointing this out is because it's national bully month to create awareness for bullying in school. A serious problem to any parent. In the real world you don't get away with comments like that - his ass would get kicked. Then where ever he said it he would be black listed and never allowed to return.

That sure is nice of you to go to prison for a stranger over something another stranger said in almost as constructive a way as possible.

It makes you sound like a violent psychopath.

He didn't bully her. He didn't show up at her office with a "Hey fatty!" sign. He didn't chase her down in other venues, he didn't persist in any way in fact.
You are applying the term bullying where it is wholly inappropriate.

Get off you high horse.

If one holds the opinion that begin gay is ok then you fine with it.
But If some one has the opinion that being gay is wrong than you think the worst of them. It appears that you have drawn a line in the sand and believe that bible believing people are the worst. Are you that intolerant of bible believing people.

I said nothing about mistreating or disrespecting gays and yet you drew you own false conclusions about me.




>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^bobknight33:
There is a difference between fear, hate and what one believes what is wrong. If one believes that being gay is wrong then it is wrong.

The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes. So who's right -- what percentage of the population is homosexual?

I believe 2+2=5, Belief doesn't make you correct. You should be listening to evidence, not belief.
@PostalBlowfish is absolutely right, you can believe homosexuality is wrong all you want. There are still lots of people who believe blacks are of inferior genetic stock, women shouldn't vote and that the earth is really flat and that we didn't go to the moon either.
Public policy, however, has a higher standard of evidence than what makes @bobknight33 and the other bible thumpers uncomfortable. Doesn't matter if there were only two homosexuals in the entire world or 200 billion, you still treat people with basic dignity and respect and they have a right to their pursuit of happiness as you do. Civil rights is not a popularity contest.
If homosexuality is so horrible and detrimental to society as you would have us believe, you shouldn't have any problem proving it without using the bible. I eagerly await your mountains of evidence.
Run away bob, run away to your next sift-trolling