Can you believe this sheet?!?!?
#41
01-10-2009, 02:57 AM
Hmm that's interesting I thought everyone had heard.
What? Heard what?
I was under the assumption that everyone knew about the word.
buh buh BUH BIRD BIRD BIRD BIRD IS THE WORD buh buh BUH BIRD BIRD BIRD BIRD IS THE WORD
But seriously, on-off-topic, I know a couple illegals who speak english and even go to my state college. In kentucky. Hillbillies 'R' Us, Kentucky. Oh and I asked her, it took my girlfriend's dad 12 years to become a US citizen. Also the entrance test to get into america I couldn't even pass. It's all a bunch of hullabaloo if you ask me. Thread hijack attempt INC
War on drugs, discuss.
What? Heard what?
I was under the assumption that everyone knew about the word.
buh buh BUH BIRD BIRD BIRD BIRD IS THE WORD buh buh BUH BIRD BIRD BIRD BIRD IS THE WORD
But seriously, on-off-topic, I know a couple illegals who speak english and even go to my state college. In kentucky. Hillbillies 'R' Us, Kentucky. Oh and I asked her, it took my girlfriend's dad 12 years to become a US citizen. Also the entrance test to get into america I couldn't even pass. It's all a bunch of hullabaloo if you ask me. Thread hijack attempt INC
War on drugs, discuss.
#42
01-10-2009, 03:14 AM
yeah they ask the kind of questions you would see in US history test in 5th grade and never again!
stuff im sure a lot of american citizens if not most would not know...
stuff im sure a lot of american citizens if not most would not know...
#45
01-11-2009, 11:02 AM
Let me first respond to the more bizarre things written here by chefro,
- "God bless this country" is a statement of patriotism and optimism. Thats all. No reason to talk about blessing ONLY one country. No reason to make this about God and religon. I believe in a divine force but am not connected to any organized religon.
- You ask me to look in the mirror and repeatedly call me arrogant and at the same time you use phrases like "racist peasant." You speak of hitting close to home and have no idea of who I am. Lets be transparent. I live in the suburbs of Baltimore. I attend the physics graduate program at a local university and study nanotechnology. I have never chewed tobacco or killed a deer but I know there are many hard working Americans who have.
And now for the slightly less bizarre part.
- The man refused to change his shirt. He was then persuaded by the airline after discussion, or by his own will decided to change his shirt. The point being that he did not want to change his shirt. But the article states clearly that it was an "eventual" change of mind. Meaning that it did not happen quickly and without discussion. In any case, this is a poor foundation to argue that I have the facts of the case wrong. In this instance, and in others, you are more concerned about the exact words I use than the point that I make.
Now to return to the real issues
- continuing from my last comment. The fact that this man agreed to board the plane should only hinder his case in court. He basically accepted the airlines demands, then sued them afterwards.
- in an attempt at progress and to show that I am attempting to reconcile your point of view with my own, I shall try to communicate the core of our differences.
-The people who support the settlement are tending to argue in generalities or atleast have allowed it to appear so. The say things like it doesnt matter what it says on the shirt. If the man had a shirt that said "I am a hijacker" or "I bomb planes" then I think most would agree that he should change his shirt. If not let me know why. However, this case is obviously not in that extreme. However, most would also agree that an arab man wearing an arabic protest shirt on a plane is a lot more upsetting to some than Joe the Plumber wearing a I Love the USA shirt. The point being that the potential for conflict is higher. I think we can agree on this as well. Now the mans supporters will say that this man should be treated the same as Joe the Plumber with his "I Love the USA shirt" when they will tend to agree that the level of alarm will be different. Now I am not proving anything here besides the fact that there are minor inconsistencies in their reasoning. Now the level of alarm that is created may be based on insecurities or ignorance or whatever but it does not make it any less real. Chefro says things like" if the airline is concerned about increased alarm on the plane, then they should prevent all arab people from flying. <This is a generality and ignores the fact that this occured at an airport in hightened security during a time of hightened awareness and alarm.> This last statement is an important one and has yet to be addressed with clear logic by anyone here in support of the settlement.
I do want to say something about the "slippery slope" issue that concerns haeshok. Because I think his concern is valid and speaking about it will help to clearly define our differences.
- Am I saying that this man is screaming fire in a movie theatre? Obviously no, and let me be very clear that I would have no issue flying with this man sitted next to me on a plane. But this issue is not what I feel personally or what people should be feeling. The issue is what people may actual be feeling in reality, when the plane has taken off and the general anxiety of flying grips those who are prone to such things, will they look at this man and feel that he is a threat? Will they look at him and apply cool reason and dismiss their emotions? Now what separates this shirt from most of the other shirts that people imagined is that it is on an arabic man and has arabic writing and in will likely bring out the emotions associated with such things and with airplanes in this time of history. And the question is not wether these feeling are justified or intolerant but wether or not they are probable. And to assume that this is not the case is to assume the thoughts, feeling, and emotions of all passengers on the plane. Now some may say that it is ridiculous to put the greater good of the ignorant over the greater good of the opressed. But we are speaking of an airline, and once the plane is in the air, the environment becomes very isolated. In this case, it is the welfare of the collective whole which is most important, not the freedom of speech of one individual. Now you can see that I speak specifically about the circumstances of the incident and do not ignore what makes this case unique. I do not try to cover this case with a blanket and make it about something much greater and more complicated.
- Now you can choose to disagree with me, and I feel I will persuade few with what I have said so far. But those who see some meaning in what I say should be careful and realize that this is a slippery slope. And I agree completely that it is one. But a slippery slope should not be the main concern here. It certaintly does not make the airline any more wrong. I think asking a man to change his shirt for a few hours while he flys on a plane is very far from being a degredation of the core principle of freedom of speech. People are told what to wear, what not to say, and what not to do every second of every day. Freedom of speech refers to the fact that we can debate this issue ad nauseum on this public forum. If I walk into the democratic national convention with a shirt that says obama is a loser, guess what, I will be treated differently. I am not going to walk through Baltimore's inner city with a shirt that says "white power" then call people intolerant if they ask me to change what I am wearing. And maybe these examples are more extreme than this case, maybe not, but they fall in the same category. They show that I am not as ridiculous as some of you beleive.
- And finally, if I have created some doubt in any of his supporters, then you must move away from his side because it is reasonable doubt which must be clearly overcome in a court of law. It is the burden of the individual to prove a clear violation of human rights without cause.
- "God bless this country" is a statement of patriotism and optimism. Thats all. No reason to talk about blessing ONLY one country. No reason to make this about God and religon. I believe in a divine force but am not connected to any organized religon.
- You ask me to look in the mirror and repeatedly call me arrogant and at the same time you use phrases like "racist peasant." You speak of hitting close to home and have no idea of who I am. Lets be transparent. I live in the suburbs of Baltimore. I attend the physics graduate program at a local university and study nanotechnology. I have never chewed tobacco or killed a deer but I know there are many hard working Americans who have.
And now for the slightly less bizarre part.
- The man refused to change his shirt. He was then persuaded by the airline after discussion, or by his own will decided to change his shirt. The point being that he did not want to change his shirt. But the article states clearly that it was an "eventual" change of mind. Meaning that it did not happen quickly and without discussion. In any case, this is a poor foundation to argue that I have the facts of the case wrong. In this instance, and in others, you are more concerned about the exact words I use than the point that I make.
Now to return to the real issues
- continuing from my last comment. The fact that this man agreed to board the plane should only hinder his case in court. He basically accepted the airlines demands, then sued them afterwards.
- in an attempt at progress and to show that I am attempting to reconcile your point of view with my own, I shall try to communicate the core of our differences.
-The people who support the settlement are tending to argue in generalities or atleast have allowed it to appear so. The say things like it doesnt matter what it says on the shirt. If the man had a shirt that said "I am a hijacker" or "I bomb planes" then I think most would agree that he should change his shirt. If not let me know why. However, this case is obviously not in that extreme. However, most would also agree that an arab man wearing an arabic protest shirt on a plane is a lot more upsetting to some than Joe the Plumber wearing a I Love the USA shirt. The point being that the potential for conflict is higher. I think we can agree on this as well. Now the mans supporters will say that this man should be treated the same as Joe the Plumber with his "I Love the USA shirt" when they will tend to agree that the level of alarm will be different. Now I am not proving anything here besides the fact that there are minor inconsistencies in their reasoning. Now the level of alarm that is created may be based on insecurities or ignorance or whatever but it does not make it any less real. Chefro says things like" if the airline is concerned about increased alarm on the plane, then they should prevent all arab people from flying. <This is a generality and ignores the fact that this occured at an airport in hightened security during a time of hightened awareness and alarm.> This last statement is an important one and has yet to be addressed with clear logic by anyone here in support of the settlement.
I do want to say something about the "slippery slope" issue that concerns haeshok. Because I think his concern is valid and speaking about it will help to clearly define our differences.
- Am I saying that this man is screaming fire in a movie theatre? Obviously no, and let me be very clear that I would have no issue flying with this man sitted next to me on a plane. But this issue is not what I feel personally or what people should be feeling. The issue is what people may actual be feeling in reality, when the plane has taken off and the general anxiety of flying grips those who are prone to such things, will they look at this man and feel that he is a threat? Will they look at him and apply cool reason and dismiss their emotions? Now what separates this shirt from most of the other shirts that people imagined is that it is on an arabic man and has arabic writing and in will likely bring out the emotions associated with such things and with airplanes in this time of history. And the question is not wether these feeling are justified or intolerant but wether or not they are probable. And to assume that this is not the case is to assume the thoughts, feeling, and emotions of all passengers on the plane. Now some may say that it is ridiculous to put the greater good of the ignorant over the greater good of the opressed. But we are speaking of an airline, and once the plane is in the air, the environment becomes very isolated. In this case, it is the welfare of the collective whole which is most important, not the freedom of speech of one individual. Now you can see that I speak specifically about the circumstances of the incident and do not ignore what makes this case unique. I do not try to cover this case with a blanket and make it about something much greater and more complicated.
- Now you can choose to disagree with me, and I feel I will persuade few with what I have said so far. But those who see some meaning in what I say should be careful and realize that this is a slippery slope. And I agree completely that it is one. But a slippery slope should not be the main concern here. It certaintly does not make the airline any more wrong. I think asking a man to change his shirt for a few hours while he flys on a plane is very far from being a degredation of the core principle of freedom of speech. People are told what to wear, what not to say, and what not to do every second of every day. Freedom of speech refers to the fact that we can debate this issue ad nauseum on this public forum. If I walk into the democratic national convention with a shirt that says obama is a loser, guess what, I will be treated differently. I am not going to walk through Baltimore's inner city with a shirt that says "white power" then call people intolerant if they ask me to change what I am wearing. And maybe these examples are more extreme than this case, maybe not, but they fall in the same category. They show that I am not as ridiculous as some of you beleive.
- And finally, if I have created some doubt in any of his supporters, then you must move away from his side because it is reasonable doubt which must be clearly overcome in a court of law. It is the burden of the individual to prove a clear violation of human rights without cause.
#46
01-11-2009, 03:47 PM
Hmmm... so I am writing "bizarre things"...And you really want to "reconcile the viewpoints" as an "attempt to progress" with the same arrogant stance?
Leaving aside your neverending patronizing and pretense of knowing exactly what your discussion homologue stands for, I want to clarify yet one more time for you some aspects in this topic. The third time around may turn out to be the charm(ing) one.
Neither I embrace, nor am the proponent of settlements for things that are not entitlements. An individual is entitled to breathe; if someone tries to prevent that person from breathing and a lawsuit will make him/her "whole" again, yes I will support the court action.
I do not support reasonless actions such as the beef Industry vs Oprah Winfrey...(Here I could really "bash the country" and add that only in America you see such sort of bizarreries and morons ready to sue for anything, but .....well, I said it anyway)
Moreover, I did not (expressely or inferred) voice any support for the individual's lawsuit against the airline. I agree that since he boarded the plane on their terms, he willingly subjected himself to that airline's flight policy. In addition, The fact that this willingness to still take the flight (under the circumstances) did not hinder his case in the court is beyond this discussion.
Ok, so "we" (supposedly I was part of the group supporting the settlement) have some "inconsistencies in reasoning".
Well, to that I will reply that your extended comeback is even more bizarre in a context where you started pretending to know exactly that the guy was PROVOKING the airline, and when called on it you backed up saying that you actually just tried to find "justifications" for the airline, and then you threw in a "God Bless the US" at the end...
Therefore, the whole "religion" slippery slope was initiated by yourself. Now, you say it was just a statement of "patriotism and optimism", but if we were to use your own rationale, this could be viewed as a BLUNT provocation when discussing the case of a MIDDLE EASTERNER... We can agree (or not)that's one more reason to leave out of conversation ( especially when you're an Agnostic - you already gave the hint ) slogans about a religious God.
You see, education is a wonderful thing, but arrogance takes away sometimes all its fruits. Moreover, you changed the direct addressing to "Chefro says", as you subject me to the public judgement... Should I infer that direct addressing didn't fit anymore your established pattern of arrogance first, then followed by personal attack secondly? However, this is not the important thing but was worth being pointed out.
So, indeed, let's start reestablishing a little order in this scatter of nano-changed statements and dichotomies.
Before explaining my ironical sendings, let's start by discussing "poor foundation to argue" you brought about. The argument concering a potential "uneasiness" of some of the passengers is such a lame sugar-coating for RACIAl PROFILING - at least at that particular moment. And yes I'm talking about the airline's lame PR wording.
Let's remember that the gentleman WASN'T even YET IN the plane when he was approached and asked to change his t-shirt. IF some passengers INDEED were uncomfortable with his LOOK/deameanor/wardrobe and voiced their concern to the airline officials, THAT SHOULD HAVE OCCURED IN THE PLANE while still boarding. As you say, the plane becomes a closed environment as soon as it takes off.
Of course context is important, but taking a man from the middle of a boarding room and asking him to change a t-shirt it's plain xenophobia, paranoia, racial profiling, you find the right term... Maybe this reasoning is extreme, but probably 99.9% of the passengers had neither clue of what the inscription is all about, nor if the inscription was in Arabic, Hebrew or Farsi.
I cannot distinguish them as probably you don't either. IF indeed someone among the passengers, airport personnel would have known what the inscription is all about, probably the case would have not existed. This is a safely to reason train of thought. If the guy would have had on a t-shirt with the same inscription in English "We Will not be Silent", probably (not surely) the xenophobia/paranoia would have not existed.
Is this a poor "foundation to argue"? .....Well, if you believe it is and your reasoning is superior... my hat off to you, so I will stop here.
There are so many more things that need to be explained (to you), but suddenly I just feel I waste my time in vain. For a strange reason, I have this feeling that anything a partner of discussion argue about is not as good or as "strong" as your own ...
So even though the post might appear bizarrely short and unfinished, I will just put a stop to it. Good luck with your nanotechnology.
Leaving aside your neverending patronizing and pretense of knowing exactly what your discussion homologue stands for, I want to clarify yet one more time for you some aspects in this topic. The third time around may turn out to be the charm(ing) one.
Neither I embrace, nor am the proponent of settlements for things that are not entitlements. An individual is entitled to breathe; if someone tries to prevent that person from breathing and a lawsuit will make him/her "whole" again, yes I will support the court action.
I do not support reasonless actions such as the beef Industry vs Oprah Winfrey...(Here I could really "bash the country" and add that only in America you see such sort of bizarreries and morons ready to sue for anything, but .....well, I said it anyway)
Moreover, I did not (expressely or inferred) voice any support for the individual's lawsuit against the airline. I agree that since he boarded the plane on their terms, he willingly subjected himself to that airline's flight policy. In addition, The fact that this willingness to still take the flight (under the circumstances) did not hinder his case in the court is beyond this discussion.
Ok, so "we" (supposedly I was part of the group supporting the settlement) have some "inconsistencies in reasoning".
Well, to that I will reply that your extended comeback is even more bizarre in a context where you started pretending to know exactly that the guy was PROVOKING the airline, and when called on it you backed up saying that you actually just tried to find "justifications" for the airline, and then you threw in a "God Bless the US" at the end...
Therefore, the whole "religion" slippery slope was initiated by yourself. Now, you say it was just a statement of "patriotism and optimism", but if we were to use your own rationale, this could be viewed as a BLUNT provocation when discussing the case of a MIDDLE EASTERNER... We can agree (or not)that's one more reason to leave out of conversation ( especially when you're an Agnostic - you already gave the hint ) slogans about a religious God.
You see, education is a wonderful thing, but arrogance takes away sometimes all its fruits. Moreover, you changed the direct addressing to "Chefro says", as you subject me to the public judgement... Should I infer that direct addressing didn't fit anymore your established pattern of arrogance first, then followed by personal attack secondly? However, this is not the important thing but was worth being pointed out.
So, indeed, let's start reestablishing a little order in this scatter of nano-changed statements and dichotomies.
Before explaining my ironical sendings, let's start by discussing "poor foundation to argue" you brought about. The argument concering a potential "uneasiness" of some of the passengers is such a lame sugar-coating for RACIAl PROFILING - at least at that particular moment. And yes I'm talking about the airline's lame PR wording.
Let's remember that the gentleman WASN'T even YET IN the plane when he was approached and asked to change his t-shirt. IF some passengers INDEED were uncomfortable with his LOOK/deameanor/wardrobe and voiced their concern to the airline officials, THAT SHOULD HAVE OCCURED IN THE PLANE while still boarding. As you say, the plane becomes a closed environment as soon as it takes off.
Of course context is important, but taking a man from the middle of a boarding room and asking him to change a t-shirt it's plain xenophobia, paranoia, racial profiling, you find the right term... Maybe this reasoning is extreme, but probably 99.9% of the passengers had neither clue of what the inscription is all about, nor if the inscription was in Arabic, Hebrew or Farsi.
I cannot distinguish them as probably you don't either. IF indeed someone among the passengers, airport personnel would have known what the inscription is all about, probably the case would have not existed. This is a safely to reason train of thought. If the guy would have had on a t-shirt with the same inscription in English "We Will not be Silent", probably (not surely) the xenophobia/paranoia would have not existed.
Is this a poor "foundation to argue"? .....Well, if you believe it is and your reasoning is superior... my hat off to you, so I will stop here.
There are so many more things that need to be explained (to you), but suddenly I just feel I waste my time in vain. For a strange reason, I have this feeling that anything a partner of discussion argue about is not as good or as "strong" as your own ...
So even though the post might appear bizarrely short and unfinished, I will just put a stop to it. Good luck with your nanotechnology.
Last edited by chefro; 01-11-2009 at 03:49 PM.
#47
01-11-2009, 06:56 PM
Your intolerance of my tone and of this discussion speaks for itself.
I speak to you as an equal and any perception of arraogance is coincidental, and completely my fault. I know we are not so unsimilar because I too feel that this conversation is pointless. You mock me and my entire line of reasoning, then admit to fully agreeing with the conclusion.
I speak to you as an equal and any perception of arraogance is coincidental, and completely my fault. I know we are not so unsimilar because I too feel that this conversation is pointless. You mock me and my entire line of reasoning, then admit to fully agreeing with the conclusion.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post