WELCOME TO BEER WORLD CATSKILL

Welcome to the Beer World Blog

Originally Posted by Neverfly Originally Posted by Boing3000 The difference between you (and kojak) and me, is that I would never be as arrogant as to pretend to know what they would have said.

Thank you. She expressed, they took action against her living affairs. I am all for it.Anyway I still have my freedom to say that it is you that is totally confused about the issue. I am asking you to stop this outrageous comparison, because the ‘hint’ will come back. And they did not just push the envelope, or the previous standard. They risked death by fire in their churches as well as targeted murders. No by you, not by me. I am sorry. Can you not tell the difference?

Originally Posted by Boing3000 The difference between you (and kojak) and me, is that I would never be as arrogant as to pretend to know what they would have said. Originally Posted by Neverfly Originally Posted by Boing3000 The balance is : She expressed- they expressed , She dislike (‘their’sign) they dislike (her gesture/sign) Wrong. Had that girl said something you agreed with, you may be on her side. Once again what is nonsense https://students.asu.edu/employment? Sense will be decided by consensus. Originally Posted by Boing3000 The balance is : She expressed- they expressed , She dislike (‘their’sign) they dislike (her gesture/sign) Wrong. I don’t know what to call her – she’s worse than insensitive or oblivious or immature, but I doubt she even knows what she thinks herself to amount to bigoted. I am not going either to pretend to know if ‘their’ action was the crucial lever on her bosses decision (was it not you that talk about the missing variables?)All I know is that they did not chase her with spikes… ‘they’ just have freedom of expression. Yes, and once again Adelady replied very precisely and with balance (in my opinion).For me it is even degrading for history to make such comparisons.

Do you realize that by arguing in support of that woman losing her job, while just now pointing out the “risks” MLKjr and Parks took, that you are validating the people that were a threat to MLKjr and Parks?Take a moment to think about the position you have advocated in this thread. And certainly not by unbalanced argument like . The Long Walk Home – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) MLK inspired millions of people, but he was assassinated – and he knew he was taking that risk. You’re claiming I said something that I did not say. The difference between you (and kojak) and me, is that I would never be as arrogant as to pretend to know what they would have said. They made those choices as representatives of political movements they supported and were supported by. I won’t be missing much, anyway. And I don’t doubt for a moment that you’d never consciously defend the actions of those in history that persecuted people who said things they disagreed with. It wasn’t.

It was not just a movie you now. Mine is ‘She took action against their living standard’ <=> They took action again hers. I am sorry. As for Rosa Parks and MLK, they made conscious choices to risk legal, or purportedly legal, penalties. And I don’t doubt for a moment that you’d never consciously defend the actions of those in history that persecuted people who said things they disagreed with. For this reason and the reason above, I think you’re confused on this issue and you need not be responded to nor addressed any further in this thread. But if it is your will is not to be addressed anymore, I won’t. Maybe she’s made a virtue of being stubborn – but doing it with no worthwhile principles to guide her to use that persistence for any good purpose. No, I support the freedom of expression.

For this reason and the reason above, I think you’re confused on this issue and you need not be responded to nor addressed any further in this thread.Because of the confusion you may have and the behavior of acting as though I arrogantly made speculations that I never did, Boing3000, I will be paying no attention to your arguments from this point onward. At a price you visibly cannot begin to understand. I never said nor hinted at nor implied any speculation at how they might feel about it.By claiming that is the difference between us, you imply that I am arrogantly claiming they would have sided with her.

Those people no just speek freely, they ACT freely. It may even change relative to time or relative to the different standards ‘you’ and ‘I’ (and the other multitude) may represent. You need to balance the equation.If she had the “right” to post the expression, they had the right to grumble about it and feel annoyed or bothered.But once they acted against her, demanded her be punished, she extended far greater ‘rights’ to themselves than she had extended over them.For the equation to be balanced, it would be: She expressed- they disliked.With her punished, the equation is unbalanced, it’s off kilter. She expressed, they took action against her living affairs. Originally Posted by Boing3000 What was pointed out, however, was that they spoke out and they were abused by people that disagreed with what they had to say. That is a very small thing not to put in the same category as fighting to be recognize has human being. I doubt that kind of social support would be coming for this woman, let alone that consequence. After all it was the weakness of your own argument underlined and bold’ed.

Your arguments support the principles those people used to justify their abuse. Originally Posted by Boing3000 OK then, I get the hint wrong. Yes of course, that’s your right. Originally Posted by Boing3000 Had that girl said something you agreed with, you may be on her side. Suddenly, their “right” to be offended and to have her punished because they disliked what she had to say had greater strength than a “Right” that this country is founded upon.That’s absolute nonsense. I have not done so in any form.What was pointed out, however, was that they spoke out and they were abused by people that disagreed with what they had to say.

I am not that kind of a chasing guy.Farewell Neverfly. You need to balance the equation.If she had the “right” to post the expression, they had the right to grumble about it and feel annoyed or bothered.But once they acted against her, demanded her be punished, she extended far greater ‘rights’ to themselves than she had extended over them.For the equation to be balanced, it would be: She expressed- they disliked.With her punished, the equation is unbalanced, it’s off kilter. Me I will continue read carefully what you write, it is interesting to see those boundaries of standard evolving. Originally Posted by Neverfly Originally Posted by Boing3000 The difference between you (and kojak) and me, is that I would never be as arrogant as to pretend to know what they would have said. Can you not tell the difference? No, I can’t. I don’t like double standards. The most important thing was that many thousands of people followed Rosa Parks’s example and trudged wearily by foot to and from work for over a year rather than take the bus. (One of the best films Whoopi Goldberg ever made was The Long Walk Home. Originally Posted by Boing3000 Actually I do.

Suddenly, their “right” to be offended and to have her punished because they disliked what she had to say had greater strength than a “Right” that this country is founded upon.That’s absolute nonsense.Above, I replied to Adelady with two links.What if someone had posted a picture in 1957 showing a black person drinking from a white water fountain?What abut the outrage and “offended” people that would act against those people, then? Would that be so supported as you are doing now?And Rosa Parks and MLK jr. stood up with courage and made a difference- they at least earned the public outcry they caused.Yet, this girl Lindsey was only being silly. Originally Posted by seagypsy …Is it ever acceptable to burn the flag?

YES, especially if it is sewn onto the crotch or ass of some damned hippy draft dodger’s tattered blue jeans………….I get one helluva lot more offended when I see local businesses leaving their flags out in the rain or after dark.At least the damned draftdodging hippy saw it as a powerful symbol instead of a shallow show for sales purposes—–is there more reverence in the burning, or ignoring?Personally, I ain’t gonna “fight to the death” for your right to say anything: Not for your right to say “good morning”, nor “fuck off asshole” or anything in between.Though, I might join you if you choose to “fight for your rights”…………Anyone building a website or facebook blog saying “lets get the assholes fired who got Lindsey Stone fired”?Sue them individually and collectively for advocating the abrogation of Lindsey Stones constitutional rights?I saw some gatherings in the late 60s, early 70’s turn into teargassed panicking free for alls and, the teargas floating through the beams of light from the flashlights and street lights had a certain etherial charm as the fog of war and for those so stung, the protection of the law did indeed fade away in the rush of war. A war between the status quo rednecks with guns(and tear gas), and the “protestors” who wanted change.and I?I went and got a bucket of water and some rags, and threw a jar of water into the faces of the teargassed youth that ran in my direction, and then handed them a rag, with the advice–“Go home”. Your arguments support the principles those people used to justify their abuse. I am not her boss, I may even have give her a raise. I can’t even bring myself to call her silly – but she’s not nasty either. After all it was the weakness of your own argument underlined and bold’ed.

Originally Posted by Boing3000 I will be paying no attention to your arguments from this point onward. I won’t be missing much, anyway. They may even have ‘side’ nursing essay writing service uk
with you, if you want to see everything as polarized good versus evil. And think about why it’s so important to speak out against these people that seek to actively punish those that they disagree with. The balance is : She expressed- they expressed , She dislike (‘their’sign) they dislike (her gesture/sign) Originally Posted by Neverfly Above, I replied to Adelady with two links. Since you addressed this, without ducking and dodging, I accept and retract some of my harshness.I take how I express myself very seriously and I do not take kindly to what I express being altered/distorted/claimed it was something very different. You can’t be certain that going a bit too far over the social limits won’t get you not just in trouble, but actually burnt. Especially on internet were nobody can be accounted for. They set other peoples free.You now what ? I have no idea what MLK and Rosa Parks may have though of this particular girl.

But at least I can understand your point of view. It wasn’t worth a passing mention, much less how these unconstitutional groups got worked up over it.EDIT: Adelady, I see you replied. In recent times, I’ve seen major flame wars elsewhere because of that behavior and I’m still more than a little touchy about it.Misunderstandings happen but to claim I said something I clearly did not say is not a misunderstanding. It wasn’t. OK then, I get the hint wrong.

You’re claiming I said something that I did not say.I never said nor hinted at nor implied any speculation at how they might feel about it. Originally Posted by Neverfly Originally Posted by Boing3000 Actually I do.

{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment