Expect the unexpected!

[Sal]

Now that was funny, and I understood all of it!

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Eric Payne

Oh, Karl, you'd be surprised how quoting someone can harm the someone being quoted.

Take for example, a recent quote in the media from Cathi Herrod, of the Center for Arizona Policy. The Center for Arizona Policy is a group of conservatives who believe, since it's named itself the Center for Arizona Policy, it is now, somehow, responsible for setting Arizona policy, despite the citizens of Arizona having elected other officials to set policy for us. Anyway, back to Ms Herrod and her quote:

“Homosexual advocates are aggressively pursuing an incremental strategy to obtain full equality, meaning special rights for homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.”

Ms Herrod, apparently, sees absolutely nothing negative about saying equality for gays is, actually, special rights.

If it's equal... how can it be "special"?

Quoting her is what you did in red. Interpret it is what you did in Blue. Her sentence is not clear. I also do not care to defend it at this moment, but I can read into it other what you have read into it...

In this context, however, what you said in blue can be considered a method of making her look less intelligent, or 'hurting' her reputation. What you said in red, cannot.

[Five-Flags]

Originally Posted by Eric Payne

Oh, Karl, you'd be surprised how quoting someone can harm the someone being quoted.

Take for example, a recent quote in the media from Cathi Herrod, of the Center for Arizona Policy. The Center for Arizona Policy is a group of conservatives who believe, since it's named itself the Center for Arizona Policy, it is now, somehow, responsible for setting Arizona policy, despite the citizens of Arizona having elected other officials to set policy for us. Anyway, back to Ms Herrod and her quote:

“Homosexual advocates are aggressively pursuing an incremental strategy to obtain full equality, meaning special rights for homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.”

Ms Herrod, apparently, sees absolutely nothing negative about saying equality for gays is, actually, special rights.

If it's equal... how can it be "special"?

Sorry, Eric, but I'd have to disagree (at least in part). While (to use your example) she may have made a foolish statement, to quote her does not harm her beyond the extent of possibly spreading awareness of the fact that she made a foolish statement! If the statement was NOT made, or was made by someone else and attributed to her, then you could speak of possible harm. However, just because she may regret making the statement, does not mean she escapes from the consequences of the statements she makes.

I know that I (yes, even I) have made statements (perhaps even on this board) that were slightly less than brilliant, and I might even wish I could have made them more clearly or even retract them. However, that is not an option, nor should it be! In my not-so-humble opinion, one of this country's most serious failings is the reluctance to hold individuals accountable for their actions (including statements they make).

If you said it or did it, then live up to it! If you spoke erroneously, admit it and apologise! If you acted foolishly, 'fess up to it. I've never heard of anyone actually dying (literally) from embarassment. I truely believe that this country would be VASTLY improved if people would just shoulder the responsibility for their own actions.

Needless to say, the most guilty of all in this respect are the politicians; and if they were held accountable would have the largest impact in the quality of life for EVERY American citizen.

Right behind them is the media, who attempt to convey opinion by pretending their reporting is objective. Case in point (and this may come back on me) - I do not believe there is such a thing as an "undocumented immigrant" - they are "illegal aliens", and they are NOT eligible for the benefits and entitlements of either citizens or registered aliens. They are stealing from each and every taxpayer in this country every time they take a benefit that they have not earned, whether it is education in our schools, medical care in our hospitals and clinics, or (ha!) unemployment benefits!

[ /soapbox mode]

Oh, well - the scales are in the lower left corner - I'm sure some will find them. My point was... holding someone's words up to them is not an evil act -- it is recognition of their ownership of their own statements, no more.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Sal

... it was nuance, which apparently was lost.

But the aim of my bringing up something which was imparted to me inconversation, and saying the "do as I say..." schpiel was indeed to say that if we all [hypothetically] followed the limits of pedestrianism (if that is a word at all), we wouldn't need to debate (or have the reason) to debate about things like head on collisions.

I find it hard to believe that any of us gliders actually glide the way we would expect others to in similar situations...

So lets keep it cool. It was just a small case of missing nuance. I'll try to be even clearer than I think I usually am in future posts.

-Sal

Regardless of someone espousing the virture of pedestrianism, I have never said that we should, and therefore, cannot be accused of telling people to do as I say, and not as I do.

If everyone glided as I do, with the respect and common curtesy that I demonstrate, than this conversation about gliding improperly would be equally moot.

I believe Gbrandwood said the same thing.

I also have it in official record, as the Police Chief in my town said the same thing on record, when he stated that I was the only one in town who had a segway that he knew, and if everone used it as I do, he saw no reason to legislate anything....

I still do not acknowledge the universality of "do as I say, not as I do" I believe "Follow me boys" is a harder path, but you say it with deeds, not words. Some of us actually live this way.

[Sal]

I have moved this thread to Off Topic because the original thread point was lost, but feel free to start another one in Off Topic to discuss some of the points made by both Five Flags and Eric, it will certainly make for interesting reading. But as always, keep it cool.

Thanks
Sal

[SegWayne]

Originally Posted by Sal

I have moved this thread to Off Topic because the original thread point was lost, Sal

Sal, you do a good job, but, there should be a way to cntl-x (delete and send to clipboard to paste later) all of the stuff when a thread is hijacked, therefore preserving the original, and sending the hijackers somewhere else... in fact, how about under Other Forums, make a Hijacked section, that way when people start reading something they'll know that by the time they get to the end it will have swung ether very right or very left......

Originally Posted by Five-Flags

... (r)ight behind them is the media, who attempt to convey opinion by pretending their reporting is objective. Case in point (and this may come back on me) - I do not believe there is such a thing as an "undocumented immigrant" - they are "illegal aliens", and they are NOT eligible for the benefits and entitlements of either citizens or registered aliens. They are stealing from each and every taxpayer in this country every time they take a benefit that they have not earned, whether it is education in our schools, medical care in our hospitals and clinics, or (ha!) unemployment benefits!

Sorry, but you're incorrect.

In the Constitution, anyone in this country is entitled to all the benefits/responsibilities of anyone else in the country, despite not being citizens. The only thing expressly disallowed by non-citizens is the right to vote, and the right to hold the office of the President.

Over the years, statute upon statute has been added concerning immigration... and, today, more than 75% of people polled believe the children of undocumented immigrants who are born in this country are not legal citizens, when the Constitution, itself, states they are. The Constitution, itself, has never been amended. Until such time as it is, there is no such thing as an "illegal alien." There is an undocumented immigrant. "Illegal alien" was a phrase coined a long, long time ago to serve one purpose: inflame people against a group and, by doing so, get more votes.

[Sal]

Originally Posted by SegWayne

Sal, you do a good job, but, there should be a way to cntl-x (delete and send to clipboard to paste later) all of the stuff when a thread is hijacked, therefore preserving the original, and sending the hijackers somewhere else... in fact, how about under Other Forums, make a Hijacked section, that way when people start reading something they'll know that by the time they get to the end it will have swung ether very right or very left......

Wayne, just let me know at which point you want this thread to be cut and made into a new one, and I'll do that.

Sometimes I tend to trust that the membership of these forums, would be judicious to do it on their own, but we all get enthralled in our own words sometimes.

So just say the wod, and i'll create a new thread with the appropriate posts.

-Sal

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Eric Payne

Sorry, but you're incorrect.

In the Constitution, anyone in this country is entitled to all the benefits/responsibilities of anyone else in the country, despite not being citizens. The only thing expressly disallowed by non-citizens is the right to vote, and the right to hold the office of the President.

Over the years, statute upon statute has been added concerning immigration... and, today, more than 75% of people polled believe the children of undocumented immigrants who are born in this country are not legal citizens, when the Constitution, itself, states they are. The Constitution, itself, has never been amended. Until such time as it is, there is no such thing as an "illegal alien." There is an undocumented immigrant. "Illegal alien" was a phrase coined a long, long time ago to serve one purpose: inflame people against a group and, by doing so, get more votes.

My understanding is not nearly the same as yours. There were several admendments. The rights of this nation are for citizens, I wish you would offer up the clause in the constitution that says that children born of people here illegally are citizens of the US. I do not believe it is in the constitution at all, but in legislation from the mid 20th century.

Please tell me of where in the constitution your items are. I am at work, but I will reread my copy of the constituton tonight and look for your passages...

[quade]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthri...tes_of_America

The concept and practice predates the US Constitution, but was formally recognized by the 14th.

It should be noted that we in the US live under the basic premise of "that which is not specifically prohibited is allowed". Certain Amendments to the US Constitution are really there to specifically state in unmistakable language that a right does in fact exist. This is mostly for the benefit of people that need to see rather obvious things written down on paper. It is also one of the better arguments against things such as the ERA which, if you think about it, isn't really necessary anyway since all of the rights would be already covered elsewhere.