>> ^direpickle:
Using the term 'statist' is not helping your (our!) case and just makes you sound like a jackass.


If you believe the State should have a say in the direction of society over the voice of the individual, then you're a Statist. It's a descriptive term, not a derogatory term like, say... "jackass"? Should people be angry if I called them Democrat or Republican, then?


>> ^bmacs27:
Laws DISCOURAGE behavior. The law is a success if there are LESS murders.


You support the death penalty, then? See, direpickle, this is a statist. He believes the state has the right to take your life as long as it can be proven to discourage murders.



>> ^Psychologic:
I think the main question that others were attempting to convey was "when is behavior too dangerous to be legal?" This person who never hurt anyone may think it is safe for him to operate his vehicle with however much he drank, but he could very well be completely wrong too.


I agree with you. Some people can be terribly irrational when drinking and stepping behind the wheel, and they may be an absolute danger to others on the road. There are a several issues I take with this. First, the current legal limit is ridiculously low. Anyone with a BAC of 0.08% isn't posing a threat to anyone, and it's simply a way to generate income for the state.

Secondly, you're supposing the roads have to be a guaranteed safe environment. Sure, we'd want them that way, but at what cost? A little bit of liberty given up for a bit of safety is reasonable, but I think we're long past that. When you take to the roads, you have to assume a reasonable amount of implied risk. If you went to a hockey game and were to be hit on the head by a galvanized rubber puck and shortly thereafter died, it wouldn't be the fault of the stadium or the player or the team or anyone, because there is a reasonably amount of expected risk associated with attendance (even though when this happens, the league typically pays for the hospital bills so to not endure bad press).

Let's take your grandmother for instance. As long as she doesn't harm anyone, I think she should be able to drive as long as she feels able. Why? Because your solution is she MAY hurt someone or herself because she's getting old and can barely see over the hood of her car. And your solution is the majority's position, which is another case where the majority take away the rights of the minority; in this case, the elderly. You wouldn't ban hockey because the players MAY knock a puck out of the glass and kill someone, would you? No. Why? Because that's the risk people assume when they visit a game. The roads can be dangerous, and by driving on them you're assuming risk.

Third, once you open the door to government restrictions where do they end? First you needed a permit to drive. Then they made you wear a seat belt. Now you can't talk on your cell phone. Next you won't be able to change the radio station or talk while driving. All in the name of safety to prevent risk.

its about time someone started calling these people out for what they are. this is exactly the right way to handle them.... quantum mushroom couldnt make a comment without slandering mr franks sexual orientation.
from urban dictionary ....Finook
Derived from "finocchio" or fennel, a derogatory term for homsexual or gay, i.e., people that wiseguys feel nervous around. Can also be spelled Fanook. this is how republicans "discuss", instead of issues ,lets call names and scream hitler !!!
Also mr frank does not get "free health care". its part of his benefit package. like my health care is. its not free, i work for it. i also pay 70 dollars a month in medicare taxes, probably to pay for this psycho ladys healthcare. the next question one should always ask is where do you get healthcare? ill bet one million shes on some government program. being on medicare or medicaid and protesting healthcare reform is like driving cross country to protest roads. these people arent against government healthcare,they are against anyone ELSE getting government healthcare. we need a system where everyone pays and everyone benefits. even republicans should be able to understand that simple concept.

>> ^gwiz665:
Oh look, burdy's a hypocrite. Who'd'a'thunk it.

^I really don't think this makes burdy a hypocrite.

For example, I will usually object to being called foul names by people that have showed they don't like me, however, I can then PWN them and then further taunt them and add to their humiliation by referring to myself in the derogatory term they initially used, say, 'pussy'. Would that make me a hypocrite? I don't think so.

Regarding the racism debate.

Cholo is not a racist term. The poster's message was hate-filled but contained no derogatory terms.. just derogatory statements. The words Dirty and Mexican are not racist, but if one were to say "Dirty Mexican!" it becomes a borderline racist statement.

I don't care what internet site defines the world "Cholo" as. I'm born and raised in Los Angeles and Cholo is a term used meaning a Hispanic Gangster or Thug. It has nothing to do with cars or clothes, though typically Hispanic Gang Culture does gravitate towards certain cars and clothing styles.

The kid with the gun and his friend are Cholo's. Little Gangsters or Thugs. It's evident to anyone who has been around that culture by their style of dress and even the way he holds the gun.

>> ^Arsenault185:
Spook? Never heard that as a derogatory term for people of color. Any color. Always heard it used in reference to a CIA operative.


Really?
Type "spook" into google and read the first thing you see.
Maybe you think he was calling me a spy?

Spook? Never heard that as a derogatory term for people of color. Any color. Always heard it used in reference to a CIA operative.

Totally fake and other derogatory terms! Fie on this!

You ain't legit until you use the derogatory term bitch nigga:

"any bitch nigga with a gun can bust slugs
any nigga with a red shirt can front like a blood
even Puffy smoked a motherfucker up in the club
but only a real thug can stab someone till they die
standing in front of them, staring straight into their eyes"
Immortal Technique - Dance with the Devil

Err.

I read different books on the subject, the Assassin or Hashassin would consume Hash when carrying out their missions to iron their will, though there is historical speculation about whether it was to allow them to kill or was simply a derogatory term towards them as consumption of hash was seen as being low.

Then there is theories revolving around the Old man on the mountain and how he would attract followers through promise of paradise, though am not sure if it involved the consumption of drugs.

Am sure this is all to do with the fact that the Angels and Demons movie is coming out in May which features the Hashassin sect prominently in the story line.

In reply to this comment by persephone:
I think the downside of the commenting system here, is that when comments like yours get rotated to the front page, I think they mis-represent the community to the tens of thousands of visitors who pop in to check it out, each day.

Yes it is off-putting to read throw-away comments like that and I would hazard to guess that for a female visitor to come by and see that on the front page, she probably wouldn't bother hanging around. If that happens often enough, it can only be to the detriment of this site. Balance is the only way to greatness.

In reply to this comment by reallyboredofcollege:
I knew someone was bound to say something. I agree it can be off-putting, and I never use it, but I couldn't think of a strong enough word for this situation. I feel like other words like bitch, asshole, douchebag, fucker, etc don't have any kick anymore. When this word is used, people know you mean business. And I definitely wanted to mean it when I heard her suggest it would be a good thing if someone killed Obama.

Anyhoo, that being said, I'm all ears for suggestions of other words. I thought about saying bitch, but for the reasons stated above, it didn't have enough punch. I can't think of any other word, gender-neutral or not, that does.

In reply to this comment by persephone:
I would ask that you please try to find other ways of expressing your distaste for this woman. That way you won't be putting the women on this site off-side, by using derogatory terms that are commonly used against women.

In reply to this comment by reallyboredofcollege:
This woman is why we invented the word cunt.

I can't offer you any alternatives, sorry.

What I did want to offer ,'though, is that the downside of the commenting system here, is that when comments like yours get rotated to the front page, I think they mis-represent the community to the tens of thousands of visitors who pop in to check it out, each day.

Yes it is off-putting to read throw-away comments like that and I would hazard to guess that for a female visitor to come by and see that on the front page, she probably wouldn't bother hanging around. If that happens often enough, it can only be to the detriment of this site. Balance is the only way to greatness.

In reply to this comment by reallyboredofcollege:
I knew someone was bound to say something. I agree it can be off-putting, and I never use it, but I couldn't think of a strong enough word for this situation. I feel like other words like bitch, asshole, douchebag, fucker, etc don't have any kick anymore. When this word is used, people know you mean business. And I definitely wanted to mean it when I heard her suggest it would be a good thing if someone killed Obama.

Anyhoo, that being said, I'm all ears for suggestions of other words. I thought about saying bitch, but for the reasons stated above, it didn't have enough punch. I can't think of any other word, gender-neutral or not, that does.

In reply to this comment by persephone:
I would ask that you please try to find other ways of expressing your distaste for this woman. That way you won't be putting the women on this site off-side, by using derogatory terms that are commonly used against women.

In reply to this comment by reallyboredofcollege:
This woman is why we invented the word cunt.

I knew someone was bound to say something. I agree it can be off-putting, and I never use it, but I couldn't think of a strong enough word for this situation. I feel like other words like bitch, asshole, douchebag, fucker, etc don't have any kick anymore. When this word is used, people know you mean business. And I definitely wanted to mean it when I heard her suggest it would be a good thing if someone killed Obama.

Anyhoo, that being said, I'm all ears for suggestions of other words. I thought about saying bitch, but for the reasons stated above, it didn't have enough punch. I can't think of any other word, gender-neutral or not, that does.

In reply to this comment by persephone:
I would ask that you please try to find other ways of expressing your distaste for this woman. That way you won't be putting the women on this site off-side, by using derogatory terms that are commonly used against women.

In reply to this comment by reallyboredofcollege:
This woman is why we invented the word cunt.

I would ask that you please try to find other ways of expressing your distaste for this woman. That way you won't be putting the women on this site off-side, by using derogatory terms that are commonly used against women.

In reply to this comment by reallyboredofcollege:
This woman is why we invented the word cunt.

Great comment. Thank you.

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
The creation of an enemy is one of the topics covered in Loss of Innocence, a documentary about the seductive appeal of War to man.

The basic argument is that the creation of an enemy is necessary for successful psychological push to convince a population that a war is beyond all means necessary. The historical record with regards to this idea is filled with evidence, consider World War 2.

Prior to Pearl Harbor, the US population did not want to engage with any war with either the 3rd Reich or Imperialist Japan. However the attack on Pearl Harbor solidified the case for war instantly, nearly a million Americans signed up, internment camps were created. Propaganda posters from the time show the Japanese as beastly beings, with slit eyes, yellow skin, fangs and claws. The enemy is dehumanized and generalized, even though in reality hegemony is never achieved, however there is a need to inherently dissolve their individuality to make them our enemies. The word 'Jap' became a derogatory term, in fact vocabulary is key in dehumanization of an enemy.

Vietnam followed the same path, with the Gulf Of Tonkin incident that made it seem like the NVA attacked US ships even though this was proven false. Vietnamese were portrayed as red communists, part of a larger threat embodied by Red China and the USSR based around the Domino theory. The words from that time - 'Gook', 'Victor Charlie', 'VC' and so on.

Iraq, Gulf War 1, the main drive for war publicly was the false testimony of Kuwait Embassy, the daughter of the ambassador was couched by a PR firm to relate a story of Iraqi troops pulling infant babies out of incubators. The public support increased instantly for going to War. The words - 'Sand nigger', 'Towel head', 'Hajji' most repeated now in the current war.

What is fascinating to me is that the enemy creation is necessary for violent acts of war, the same time it's seductive, its easy to psychologically develop an us vs them stand point, its simple. They are all guilty, they are all the enemy, so they must all perish so we can develop a better life for ourselves. But how do you tell a terrorist from a civilian? How do you not lash out at civilians who support the insurgents? Just like US troops lashed out at civilians in Vietnam because they knew or believed they helped the VC and NVA? When getting shot on a day to day basis by an unseen enemy, how does one not give into the urge to lash out against the civilians who you see everyday, there is a man there is his early 20s, he looks fiercely at your OP, his hands formed into tight fists, eyes like bullets. He bends down to pick something up, is it a stick? is it an RPG? Do I aim and pull the trigger?

To end evil we must commit great evil in kind, but we risking becoming evil ourselves for when we stare into the abyss the abyss stares back at us.

The creation of an enemy is one of the topics covered in Loss of Innocence, a documentary about the seductive appeal of War to man.

The basic argument is that the creation of an enemy is necessary for successful psychological push to convince a population that a war is beyond all means necessary. The historical record with regards to this idea is filled with evidence, consider World War 2.

Prior to Pearl Harbor, the US population did not want to engage with any war with either the 3rd Reich or Imperialist Japan. However the attack on Pearl Harbor solidified the case for war instantly, nearly a million Americans signed up, internment camps were created. Propaganda posters from the time show the Japanese as beastly beings, with slit eyes, yellow skin, fangs and claws. The enemy is dehumanized and generalized, even though in reality hegemony is never achieved, however there is a need to inherently dissolve their individuality to make them our enemies. The word 'Jap' became a derogatory term, in fact vocabulary is key in dehumanization of an enemy.

Vietnam followed the same path, with the Gulf Of Tonkin incident that made it seem like the NVA attacked US ships even though this was proven false. Vietnamese were portrayed as red communists, part of a larger threat embodied by Red China and the USSR based around the Domino theory. The words from that time - 'Gook', 'Victor Charlie', 'VC' and so on.

Iraq, Gulf War 1, the main drive for war publicly was the false testimony of Kuwait Embassy, the daughter of the ambassador was couched by a PR firm to relate a story of Iraqi troops pulling infant babies out of incubators. The public support increased instantly for going to War. The words - 'Sand nigger', 'Towel head', 'Hajji' most repeated now in the current war.

What is fascinating to me is that the enemy creation is necessary for violent acts of war, the same time it's seductive, its easy to psychologically develop an us vs them stand point, its simple. They are all guilty, they are all the enemy, so they must all perish so we can develop a better life for ourselves. But how do you tell a terrorist from a civilian? How do you not lash out at civilians who support the insurgents? Just like US troops lashed out at civilians in Vietnam because they knew or believed they helped the VC and NVA? When getting shot on a day to day basis by an unseen enemy, how does one not give into the urge to lash out against the civilians who you see everyday, there is a man there... in his early 20s combat age, he looks fiercely at your OP, his hands formed into tight fists, eyes like bullets. He bends down to pick something up, is it a stick? is it an RPG? Do I aim and pull the trigger?

To end evil we must commit great evil in kind, but we risking becoming evil ourselves for when we stare into the abyss the abyss stares back at us.