|
|
Ron Hammon wrote:
> While watching "Patton", and some military graves
with either crosses
> or "Star of David" as grave markers, it occurred
to me that we
> atheists don't have a simple grave marker. Anything pointing
up
> won't work, or a circle of any kind. Anything devoid of ANY
> orimentation would just be interpreted as a post. Off the top
of my
> head, I thought of a horizontal disk, an ANTI-pointer. Any
better
> ideas?
My mother taught me to use a cross to mark disturbed ground, not
just
graves. So when she'd been camping and crapping in a hole for a
week
she'd mark the filled-in hole with a cross, easy to make in seconds
out of sticks, make it as resistant to biodegrading as the contents
of
the hole. So the cross is simply the default marker for a hole with
something that shouldn't be dug up. But my mother has been known
to be
as full of shit as a lattrine on the fifth day of camp so I wouldn't
take that idea too far.
I suggest a simple square in the same sort of size as the rest
of the
graves, not drawing excessive attention to it but not being a
religious symbol. Such a marker would not be confused with a Keep
Off
The Grass sign if it is in rows and rows of other obvious graves.
Go
for as undesigned as possible, take the Christian and Jewish grave
markers as the base, keep the it just the same until the bit with
the
symbol on it and instead have a plain rectangle with the same mass
of
stone in it, with a little shaping around the edges so it doesn't
look
unfinished. This should give the message loud and clear: this is
just
as much a grave but with no religious symbol and no "anti-symbol"
either.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
Do Atheists ONLY believe in what they can
see,hear,feel ???
DaveinIllinois@webtv.net wrote:
> What is your opinion of this ?
>
> Thank you.
Atheists are people who don't believe in gods. That what I believe.
Many of the atheists I have come across are as thick as two short
planks. Many are very intelligent. I happen to believe many things
that I have no direct experience of. Zambia for example. The fact
that
it's rather chilly in Antarctica. That George W Bush isn't (quite)
as
dumb as he seems. That kind of thing. I believe what I know to be
true, what I have found to be true and what seems likely to be true
on
the basis of Occam's Razor, that if it wasn't true I'd have to
postulate an absurdly complicated cover-up and conspiracy that would
be mind-bogglingly expensive. I really can't believe that this
universe is just a figment of my imagination and yet this magnificent
imagination lets me live in Cheadle Hulme.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
JPF wrote:
> AN EXPANDED VERSION OF THE LORD'S PRAYER
> by David Wanstall
>
> Our Father in Heaven, Hallowed be your name-- not our name
Lord,
> Yours, may You get the attention, not us, may You get the glory,
not
> us, may You get the praise and acclaim, not us.
>
> Your kingdom come your will be done on earth as in heaven.
May Your
> empire expand, not ours, may Your will be done, not ours, may
Your
> desires and wants for us be fulfilled, not ours, in every area
of
our
> lives may Your purposes be fulfilled, not ours.
>
> Give us today our daily bread. Don't give us everything we
need
for
> a lifetime so we forget to live in daily dependence on you.
Please
> give us what we need for today to accomplish Your will, glorify
You,
> and reflect Your generosity to us.
>
> Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.
May we
> be as forgiving as You are, not harboring grudges, hurts or
> disappointments against others, ourselves, or even You.
>
> Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil. Lead
us in
the
> path of growth and fruitfulness, remove evil from within us,
help us
> not to absorb or pick up new forms, thoughts, or habits of
evil, may
> the 'bright lights' of worldliness and sin have no attraction
for us
>
> For the kingdom the power and the glory are yours now and forever.
> Amen.
And you authority for writing this is what, exactly?
Sorry, you didn't write it did you? You pasted it. But where does
the
authority come from to make up stuff like this? Surely the Lord's
Prayer is the only formal prayer dictated directly by the
mythical/legendary Yehoshua ben Yosef. Doesn't it take quite a fair
amount of chutzpah to put a gloss on those words?
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
Angela la Fontaine wrote:
> Why do more women than men bow out? And why is their choice
of
> weapons more often pills, while men's is guns? Who killed Norma
Jean?
> www.star.net/silence
More men than women kill themselves. More women than men self-harm.
The so-called suicide attempts of most women are just self-harming
cries for attention. Sometimes these go wrong and the "suicide
attempt" actually "succeeds", this is particularly
common with drugs
which are more harmful than is generally known. In Britain many
women
died or needed liver transplants after attention seeking misuse
of the
common painkiller paracetamol, recently there have been moves to
restrict the number of these in a pack so that there would be enough
to cure headaches and period pains but just short of the dose which
causes an agonizing death by acute liver failure causing multiple
organ failure and death, typically about ten days after their
attention seeking stunt.
http://www.irishhealth.com/?level=4&id=2276
Men tend to do the job right, minimizing pain and maximizing
lethality. For many men sucking the barrel(s) of a shotgun is by
far
the most effective way of achieving the desired aim: death and an
end
to pain.
Failed "suicide attempts" are far more common among women
and also gay
men. Self-mutilation and eating disorders are also more common among
women and gay men, I believe they are manifestations of similar
motivations. In contrast when straight men set out to kill themselves
they usually manage it.
Females "attempt suicide" more than males in the ratio
4 to 1
Males succeed in suicide more than females in the ratio 3 to 1
Overdose is the primary means of "suicide attempts"
However poisoning comes behind firearms and hanging as means of
successful suicides.
Categorizing female pill-popping as a suicide attempt is farcical.
Taking pills is principally, in intention as well as result, an
act of
attention-seeking and should be classed with pulling out hair,
slashing oneself with blades and anorexia.
Also contrary to popular myth suicide is not "a teenage issue",
it is
most common in the elderly for men, and peaks for the 45-54 year
old
age group for women.
Killing yourself does not require great ingenuity or special
equipment. My great aunt achieved it with a bottle of whisky and
a
plastic bag, she also swallowed all her tablets as well, probably
just
to show willing.
http://www.afsp.org/statistics/USAagegroup.htm
Don't go believing the hype, eh girls? Check out the facts first,
it
only takes a minute these days.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
Angela la Fontaine wrote:
> I believe you, Martin. And I thank you for using a name on
this
> newsgroup, rather than some pseudo crap. But I think the statistics
> misrepresent! One of the two suicides I've known was a "gay"
man who
> shot himself in his head with a pistol, as he sat beside his
lover on
> their sofa in their home they'd shared for years. The other
was a
> pedophile who gassed himself in a car in snowy woods. So my
personal
> statistics are two to nothing for dead men.
> Nevertheless, women do show more despair, whether it's bowing
out or
> trying to bow in. If your statistics are right, why are women
so
> left out? www.star.net/silence
Do these personal experiences tell you anything about yourself
perhaps?
I'd also be interested to know technical details about the gassing.
I
have heard that due to catalytic converters most cars now can't
kill
you unless they drive over you, which I suppose must be a good thing.
Perhaps what we are seeing is men being depressed and self-harming
principally though substance abuse and stupid violent behaviour
whereas women self harm in theatrical ways. Suicide, when attempted
with something seriously lethal, is something else.
Most men wouldn't have the courage to slash their wrists, which
is of
course a rather half hearted way to look like you are trying to
kill
yourself. To be honest many men wouldn't have the courage to wax
their
legs or pluck their eyebrows. My mother worked in a women's prison
and
was quite used to coming across women who slashed their wrists,
I
don't recall her ever telling me about a woman who "succeeded"
in
killing herself this way. Several women were covered in self-inflicted
scars. Effective prison suicides are usually hangings, and these
are
usually men.
When I said research only takes a minute that was as much of an
admission as an admonition. I admit the thing about gays was not
thoroughly researched. OK, not researched at all, but that doesn't
mean it's wrong, just that I'm not confident it's right. However
I did
remember the thing about women attempting more but men succeeding
from
studying sociology ... oh my god, how long ago?!
Men and women both get depressed but they handle it in different
ways.
I don't think you can use statistics on "suicide attempts"
to prove
whether women are less happy than men, at least not without other
supporting evidence. Most women never do anything that could be
classified as a suicide attempt by any stretch of the imagination.
As for using my name that's straight-forward, I say what I mean,
mean
what I say and sign my name.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
Fatha -Jack wrote:
> Aaaaah diddums. Have the poor ikle muslims had a taste of their
own
> medicine? Poor ikle savages!
>
I thought one of the reasons for going into Iraq was to stop arbitrary
beatings and abuse of Iraqis? And one thing is for certain, if Iraq
does get its own democratic government it will be almost exclusively
Muslim, in composition if not character.
If the coalition forces are acting in ways similar to the previous
regime then nothing has been achieved at all. Now Iraq is occupied
by
forces who definitely do possess weapons of mass destruction and
they
are now suspected of abusing Iraqis.
Iraqis in Iraq opposing foreign forces of occupation can hardly
be
called terrorists, anybody in their own country resisting foreign
occupying troops must objectively be classified as resistance
fighters. Of course that doesn't make them glorious heroes any more
than wearing the uniform of a democracy makes a racist bigot of
a thug
civilized.
It is far from clear that these accusations and photographs are
genuine but at least it seems as if the British military's response
to
them is as swift and decisive as it should be.
There can be no room for thuggery in the professional armed forces
of
democratic countries.
If these charges are genuine those responsible should be treated
as
harshly as the rules allow. The same goes if they are bogus. Wars
should never be started or finished because of faked propaganda.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
Wotan wrote:
> In all probability put together by either Mossad or the CIA
> to distract attention from their own (real) pictures of
> disgusting torture and humiliation of Iraqis by US troops
> (complete with faces and arrests) perpetrated by their soldiers
> on the orders of an over-promoted Jewish woman Brigadier,
> Janis Karpinski - which her own soldiers describe as
> "incompetent and promoted far beyond her capabilities
> because she was a woman." They dare not say "and
> because she was a Jew".
>
> Apparently, if you are able to play both the "Jewish"
and
> "woman" card at the same time, you can become a
> Brigadier General ! And they do ! All the time !
>
> The Mail on Sunday 2/5/04, p5, points out the following:
The Mail On Sunday's observations do make the photographs look
highly
suspicious, but why do you immediately use the story to run your
own
warped agenda? Is it perhaps that you are in the pay of Mossad
yourself, seeking to undermine any attempts to attack Jews by doing
it
with such breathtaking incompetence that any anti-Semitic movement
is
laughed off all public platforms? That conspiracy theory has as
much
to back it up as yours do.
http://mwillett.org/mind/conspiracytheory.htm
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
The possession of weapons of mass destruction was the reason given
for
the war. If that reason is bogus then we have been mislead. If we
have
been knowingly mislead then that is a serious offence against the
democratic process, it is in effect both treason and a war crime.
To me the WMD issue wasn't important. What mattered was the simple
calculation of whether the world would be better off with Saddam
Hussein removed, considering what the likely casualties would be.
It
was a great prize, it could be a high cost. I think they made the
right call, but to have gone to war over a lie remains a betrayal
of
the people.
You seem not to care about such things, but just seem to glory
in the
fight itself. Such an attitude is beneath contempt.
I did used to have some respect for the armed forces, but seeing
things like this makes that drop like a stone. You show just how
ignorant and ill-educated so many members of the armed forces are.
And
the worst part is the glorying in the ignorance and the bigotry.
If it knew what you were really like I don't think your country
would
want you fighting for it, just as they would love to rip their flag
from the hands of the BNP and football hooligans too.
Fortunately I do happen to know other members and former members
of
the armed forces and I know that your ignorant ill-educated fascist
thuggery is not by any means the whole story.
For your information I am not anti-war. I have supported the invasion
of Iraq since 1983 when I first discovered the nature of Saddam
Hussein's regime. Unfortunately too many people are in awe of the
dictators' trade union that is the UN to plan a serious foreign
policy.
I agree, any one of those explanations seems reasonable. But the
weight of evidence is highly suggestive of a mock up. There's nothing
in the photographs that looks individual or distinctive, or dirty,
or
out of focus, or ill-lit or in any other way not part of the plot.
It
is as artificial as the speech patterns on TV dramas, no fluffed
words, no incoherent sentences etc. Every single thing in the images
looks like it is there for a reason, like the Iraqi flag t shirt,
like
the milky-white complexion of the nasty thug, like the stream of
urine
without showing the penis, which is just what the picture editor
would
have ordered -oo, wet the hood first ducky so we can be sure what's
happening, on his mouth silly, keep your floppy hat over your face
please and do try to look butch!
Link to Daily Mirror faked images - now deleted, surprise surprise!
Eight hour ordeal in the back of a spotless truck? No bruises?
No
shadows? No fag ends? No blood, urine or vomit stains anywhere on
the
floor? No sun tan? No tattoos, no watch, no colour photography?
You
are quite comfortable with *all* of those details?
In contrast the US pictures look much more genuine, there's faces
gloating and there's dirt, confusion, extraneous detail and less
than
perfect photography.
|
|
Jodi wrote:
> I loved Britpop.
>
> With the massive, overwhelming exception of Oasis.
>
> <gloat>
>
When you say you love something do you mean the music or the
musicians? I consider it a sign of a decent well adjusted mind that
I
can enjoy the sound that Oasis make while utterly detesting the
pretentious overpaid tossers on a personal level. Oasis: what file
sharing was designed for. Please steal as much of their music as
you
like, it serves the buggers right.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
Fatha -Jack wrote:
> <orb@cts.com> wrote in message
> news:0CDmc.838$qQ.583@chiapp18.algx.net...
>> In soc.culture.british Underground Zero wrote:
>>> "Mummud Amud" <orb@cts.com> wrote in
message
>>> news:53c1a354.0405050808.1d419d7b@posting.google.com...
>>
>>> Oy Ali Fucking Bongo!
>>
>> Zero is good name for you.
>>
>>> I'll bring your Mosque down or raise you one.
>>
>> May pakishops infest your council estate.
>
> They tried it on ours! Two suspicious fires later the smelly
muslim
> CUNTS fucked off to Lancashire somewhere. At least that shit-hole
of
> a county deserves the fuckin pig-fuckers!
>
Jack, is anybody paying you to discredit the BNP and British
nationalism in general or do you do it entirely on a voluntary basis?
You're very good at it. So much for their attempts to make out they
are a moderate and legitimate political force, you tell it like
their
enemies want it to be told: the BNP are illeducated racist hate-filled
bigots who glory in violence and find the flag merely a good excuse
to
have a punch up.
I'm almost tempted to do the same sort of thing myself, it is probably
the best way to ensure that the BNP never gets anywhere near any
form
of political power in Britain.
I wonder whether Fatha Jack isn't actually a long haired Socialist
Workers Party activist, a sociology student with too much time on
his
hands perhaps?
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
Homosexuality may be natural
Lucius Introini wrote:
> I honestly believe that Homosexuality is nature's way of preventing
> sub-optimal humans from reproducing.
>
> And I really don't mean that in a nasty way.
>
> I believe that a homosexual 'instinct' sometimes 'kicks in'
to prevent
> humans from passing on their defective genes.
>
> Think about it before flaming me...
If being homosexual stopped people breeding then that sentiment
might
be worth considering for, oo, even a minute or two.
Many homosexuals do manage to breed. Some marry as cover, some
try to
settle down as straight and hope it will all turn out right
eventually. Do the children of these homosexuals inherit gross
deformities? What do you think? I'm not sure if my mother is a
lesbian, she's never said, but I'm damn sure most of the women she
sleeps with are.
Animals do not contain suicide genes, genes do not operate in the
interests of species.
Even assuming that a suicide gene would operate (it wouldn't) why
would it operate by changing sexual behaviour rather than by simply
stopping production of fertile gametes? Isn't it a far safer strategy
to sit in a body that goes through the motions of being heterosexual,
without being fertile, rather than making the body that carries
you
engage in high risk activities by changing numerous behavioural
switches?
There's thousands of easier ways not to breed than by being
homosexual.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
Holly the Heretic wrote:
> On Sun, 09 May 2004 02:48:49 GMT, Lucius Introini
> <lucius.introini@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I honestly believe that Homosexuality is nature's way of
preventing
>> sub-optimal humans from reproducing.
>>
>> And I really don't mean that in a nasty way.
>
> LOL - course you don't.
Come on, give him (I assume Lucius is masculine) the benefit of
the
doubt. I can't see how it would be impossible to come up with such
an
idea unless you were a homophobe or bigot, the idea does have some
merit as long as you don't get too worried by anything as complicated
as facts, evidence or mechanisms. On the other hand I can't see
how
you could come up with such an idea if you really knew anything
about
genetics. He probably thinks he's smart and has come up with some
bright new idea that nobody else has ever considered, I'd guess
he's
probably about 16, or reads The Sun, either way, mental age of about
16. Give him a break. Bless.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
alt.english.usage
Dylan Nicholson wrote:
> "Martin Willett" <ignoredmailbox@ntlworld.com>
wrote in message
> news:<2g28vfF3t960U1@uni-berlin.de>...
>> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>>> "M.C." wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Gone braindead for a moment.
>>>>
>>>> Context: painting. What's the plural of "still
life"?
>>>
>>> Dictionaries say "still lifes." I agree.
>>>
>>> Reflect on the Toronto Maple Leafs.
>>
>> Correct. A still life is not a kind of life it is a kind
of painting,
>> it defaults to the regular default English plural rule
of add an s.
>
> But is a low-life a type of life? Low-lives seems to be considered
> valid by some dictionaries. There seem to be a few other similar
> exceptions to the general rule, e.g. cloverleaves, dogteeth,
and of
> course midwives (far more common than midwifes).
>
Ah. Midwives. Tricky one. People obviously do think of midwives
as in
some way a type of wife, as this usage demonstrates. But people
don't
think of a mongoose as a type of goose, possibly something to do
with
the lack of feathers.
I see low-lives as wrong. If you are a low-life you are not a life.
As for still lifes I say Cézanne and Van Gogh were expert
at
still-lifing, expert still lifers, producing numerous still lifes
throught their lives and no doubt they would still be still lifing
now
if they were still living.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
alt.english.usage
WOM (Wise Old Man) wrote:
> Hi,
> A guy said, "I am English, I'm too damn poor to be British."
> How should I understand it? seems a culture issue?
> A wild guess again, Is a British more superior than an English?
I
> don't mean to bring up discrimination trouble. It's just an
English
> problem I found. With Thanks.
>
> Further context, it is the words from the former GE chairman,
Reg
> Jones, who was described as "an English statesman, who
was written up
> as an adviser to three presidents and their cabinets..."
> WOM (a Chinese)
I'm English, which makes me British and European. I don't see any
status difference between being British and English.
80% of the British are from England. There are more people who
live in
London than who live in Scotland and more people who live in the
rest
of England than Scots, Welsh and Londoners put together. In many
ways
English and British are interchangeable as long as the minority
of
non-English Britons is not called English.
My country is England, that is a statement of fact rather than
a
boast. I would also say that my ethnicity was English, but that
is a
separate thing to my national identity. I am quite happy to accept
people of any ethnicity as being English if they care to be. There
are
some racists who say you can be black British but you can't be black
English, my response to that would require the use of Anglo Saxon
and
Middle English which might not be appropriate in this genteel
newsgroup.
I have never met an English person who was insulted to be called
British, except when the person calling them British has spat the
word
out with venom. I do, however, prefer to be called English. I see
British as being a manufactured loyalty, and like all manufactured
loyalties it was manufactured to serve the interests of those who
manufactured it: in this case the political elites of both England
and
Scotland. Perhaps this is the same kind of sentiment as expressed
by
Reg Jones? Perhaps he too can see the way in which the notion of
Britishness has been created to serve the interests of the ruling
classes and institutions which rely on the British dimension? Such
institutions would include the British armed forces, the BBC and
of
course the aristocracy and ruling establishment elite itself which
marries within its own, and that definition of its own excludes
people
on the basis of class, nationality is a very minor issue for the
upper
classes. The daughter of a Scottish Earl marrying the son of an
English Duke (or even a Polish Count) is not in any sense unusual,
if
she were to marry the son of a taxi driver that would be, even if
he
lived in the same village.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
A bastard of a question...
A discussion of the terms bastard and differently abled.
What kind of a universe do you live in? Being crippled does not
automatically give you other abilities and not being crippled doesn't
mean you cannot have different abilities. You can call people
whatever you want but an idiot is still an idiot and a cripple is
still a cripple.
It is totally ridiculous to call somebody differently abled when
the
only thing you know about them is that they have some form of
handicap. At work I am differently abled, because I can do many
things
without a ladder. Having that different ability has not required
me to
give up the use of any limb or faculty. Being able to crack walnuts
with your buttocks is being differently abled, being able to do
a
convincing impersonation of a telephone answering machine is being
differently abled, being able to fart and make the noise appear
to
come from somewhere else is being differently abled.
Why can't people grasp the concept that if you take a person of
mediocre ability and then deprive them of some faculty they are
not
suddenly going to develop a different special talent. 'People with
disabilities' is the best and most accurate term, they are still
people, they are still valid people so don't call them *invalid*,
they
are people with disabilities. They may have special talents, but
you
don't need to be crippled to have special talents and being crippled
doesn't hand you any such talents.
If a man of average talents who can't walk is differently abled
then
George W Bush is differently competent.
To answer the main question I'd say the correct term is bastard.
Illegitimate strikes me as being as incorrect as the term invalid,
children born outside of marriage are just as legitimately children
and people although they are not legitimate issue of a marriage.
People cannot be illegitimate as people. The term 'love child' is
a
great insult to those people who bring up children in love and
marriage as well as being inaccurate in many cases, many bastards
are
simply lust children.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
>> What kind of a universe do you live in?
>
> Are you addressing me? If so, my universe
is expanding at an
> accelerating rate, according to the latest cosmological
> determinations. How about yours?
Answering rhetorical questions rarely helps debates.
(evil grin) Does it?
>
>> Being crippled does not
>> automatically give you other abilities and not being crippled
doesn't
>> mean you cannot have different abilities. You can call
people
>> whatever you want but an idiot is still an idiot and a
cripple is
>> still a cripple.
>
> You're absolutely right. I don't think
I said anything that
> indicated the contrary. I was, I thought, rebutting an argument
> that no handicapped person could do anything better than any
> non-handicapped person. Perhaps you're not addressing me after
all.
I was. I could see little or no evidence in that paragraph of an
acceptance that being handicapped does not give people special
abilities. Some handicapped people have special abilities, some
of
those are in a way related to their loss of other abilities but
there
is not any mechanism in place in my universe that automatically
gives
handicapped people compensating extra abilities but the phrase
differently abled strongly suggests that is the case.
Some disabled people are differently abled, have special abilities,
have abilities beyond those of most people. Those people can be
called
differently abled. I don't see how having one form of disability
automatically means you have another form of higher ability, and
if
you don't then the phrase is just gibberish and we would be better
off
inventing a new word devoid of any inaccurate, misleading or negative
connotations.
>>
>> It is totally ridiculous to call somebody differently abled
when the
>> only thing you know about them is that they have some form
of
>> handicap. At work I am differently abled, because I can
do many
>> things without a ladder. Having that different ability
has not
>> required me to give up the use of any limb or faculty.
Being able to
>> crack walnuts with your buttocks is being differently abled,
being
>> able to do a convincing impersonation of a telephone answering
>> machine is being differently abled, being able to fart
and make the
>> noise appear to come from somewhere else is being differently
abled.
>
> Yes, yes, yes. It's the old anti-PC argument. I share your
disgust
> at this torturing of the language,[1] although I think Ray
Wise also
> has a point -- liek it or not, it's a term in current use,
and some
> people are mightily offended if you don't use it. If one of
those
> mightily offended persons has some authority over you, watch
out.
> (My blind boss knew he was blind and called himself blind.
He was
> an asshole in many ways, but at least he didn't euphemise his
> situation.) It's just that raymond o'hara (who seems unable
to
> extract capital letters from his computer) made such an idiotic
> remark that I felt duty-bound to point out his idiocy. Please
> forgive me.
>
>> Why can't people grasp the concept that if you take a person
of
>> mediocre ability and then deprive them of some faculty
they are not
>> suddenly going to develop a different special talent. 'People
with
>> disabilities' is the best and most accurate term, they
are still
>> people, they are still valid people so don't call them
*invalid*,
>> they are people with disabilities. They may have special
talents,
>> but you don't need to be crippled to have special talents
and being
>> crippled doesn't hand you any such talents.
>
> Amen.
>
>> To answer the main question I'd say the correct term is
bastard.
>
> Unfortunately, its overtones have made it hard to understand
without
> elaboration.
Such is life.
>
>> Illegitimate strikes me as being as incorrect as the term
invalid,
>> children born outside of marriage are just as legitimately
children
>> and people although they are not legitimate issue of a
marriage.
>> People cannot be illegitimate as people. The term 'love
child' is a
>> great insult to those people who bring up children in love
and
>> marriage as well as being inaccurate in many cases, many
bastards are
>> simply lust children.
>
> Proving that there is no good word. I'd just say the person's
> parents were unmarried (if that information had to be conveyed)
and
> leave it at that.
>
Again this is a request for some more neologenesis,
I suggest we get
an English speaking student who doesn't speak Japanese to flirt
with a
Japanese student over a cup of tea and a fairy cake and give the
pair
of them five minutes to agree on a few new words to import into
English, words that can be pronounced easily in English. We can
then
perhaps have the Japanese word for sugar basin to mean disabled
person
and the Japanese word for eyelashes to be the new connotation free
word for a child born out of wedlock.
It might just work. "Let us not discriminate against [drink
stirring
stick], [pepper pot], [icing sugar] or [earring] no matter how big
or
small your [lemon scented face wipe] there is room for you in today's
society!"
http://www.mwillett.org/mind/neologenetics.htm
http://www.mwillett.org/mind/neolog2.htm
> [1] Quoting my favorite author (from
the very post to which you
> responded): "That doesn't mean that I endorse the term
"differently
> abled," which I consider representative of Political Correctness
run
> amok, for general use ..."
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
Joanne Marinelli wrote:
> "Robert Lieblich" <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net>
wrote in message
> news:409CE73B.D7E0AE79@Verizon.net...
> But this is classic Usenet, and people
>> will say what they want. I don't
referee the place, and I'm not
>> calling a foul on anyone, but isn't it time to move on?
>>
>> --
>> Bob Lieblich
>> The Voice of Reason (yeah, sure)
>
> If Mr. Willet had posted "you can call them what you will
but all
> blacks are niggers" we'd have a different situation, wouldn't
we? A
> sort of recoil.
"Niggers" is no more accurate than black and is gratuitously
offensive.
It is not a good analogy. I could say that a nigger is still a
nigger
no matter what you call him. That would have some truth to it, a
rose
is a rose by any other name. But to say a black was a nigger would
be
saying something else, that blacks (neutral description) are niggers
(offensive, insulting and demeaning description heavy with a multitude
of negative connotations). I did not say that differently abled
people
were cripples. That is absurd. But if a person is, objectively
crippled then they are crippled. We know what it means, we know
how
you cripple a tank, you shoot a rocket at it designed to disable
it,
you don't expect that tank to subsequently develop different
abilities.
>
> Attitudes like his and O'hara's are no longer acceptable in
our
> community, period. Not being able to hear is not being able
to hear,
> not being able to see is not being able to see, and not being
able
to
> walk is not being able to walk. We've evolved an intelligence
which
> focuses on the potential, not the punishment of a label for
a
> limitation.
>
> Any Usenet punk who wants to behave like a subhuman fascist
in front
> of me on these issues is going to be called on it.
Anybody who cannot spell a name that is right in front of them
is
going to get called on it, especially on a newsgroup about English
usage.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
Joanne Marinelli wrote:
> "Martin Willett" <ignoredmailbox@ntlworld.com>
wrote in message
> news:2g285rF3qitqU1@uni-berlin.de...
>> What kind of a universe do you live in? Being crippled
does not
>> automatically give you other abilities and not being crippled
doesn't
>> mean you cannot have different abilities. You can call
people
>> whatever you want but an idiot is still an idiot and a
cripple is
>> still a cripple.
>>
> Oh really? And you know this how Mr.
Willet? By smearing your
> underwear with excrement on a daily basis? If, for the sake
of a
> hypothetical argument, I assumed you were an ignorant motherf*cker,
> would that mean your mother's vagina actually does contain
your semen?
>
> Cordially,
> Joanne
If you assumed I was an ignorant motherfucker you would be wrong
on
both counts.
Are you suggesting that when a person is disabled they instantly
develop a new ability?
"Doctor will I be able to play the piano after the amputation?"
"Of course you will."
"That's amazing, I've always wanted to be able to do that."
Or perhaps you think calling an idiot chronically educationally
challenged makes them less of an idiot, or for that matter less
chronically educationally challenged?
Or perhaps you are suggesting that calling a cripple differently
abled
stops them being crippled?
Changing the term to one that people find a sick joke is not going
to
do anything about discrimination or blinkered thinking.
Blowing your top like that will only make people think worse of
you. I
have no problem with saying what I mean and meaning what I say.
Please spell my name right, it's not difficult, your software can
manage it so please try to keep up.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
|
|
>Real men don't need big guns to prove
to themselves that they are real men,
>they just know they are.
Good for you. Exactly how does that help
anyone? Not all of us can
claim to be Mr. Super Hero, trained by whatever Muscle Man Creating
organisation takes their fancy. Indeed, some of us are women.
Women who men like you are endangering with
your super hero fantasies.
Women who want back the right to protect themselves against attackers
who will inevitably be larger and stronger than they can ever hope
to
be.
This is what happened to my friend, June,
here in West Wales. No, not in
a big city, a sleepy village/town. A local man had decided that
he
wanted a relationship with her. The answer was NO. He persisted.
One
day she went out shopping, and when she came back, he was in the
house.
Followed her into the kitchen, when she became aware he was there.
June
asked him to leave. He refused.
At this stage she could have shot him with
no damage to herself. UK law
prevents women from any form of protection other than an ineffective
call to the police. So June grabbed the phone, only to see it pulled
from its socket.
She was then held hostage for the rest of
the day and overnight.
Beaten. Raped. Not allowed access to the toilet. Threatened with
a
knife taken from the rack in the kitchen. Her hands and fingers
were
cut to pieces as she tried to stop the knife getting to her throat.
She
was given a Chinese Kiss. In case you don't know, the attacker puts
his
thumbs into the corners of the mouth and pulls until the skin splits,
and then keeps on going.
In the morning, for some reason known only
to himself, this man decided
he would leave her with instructions to stay put while he went out.
June crawled to the door, unable to walk.
Unable to see, her eyes
swollen and stuck shut with blood. She crawled down the steps and
into
the street where she lay with cars swerving round her. Eventually
someone reported this to the emergency services and an ambulance
arrived.
No, the story isn't over yet. Men like you,
Robert, don't have to hide
their horror when they gaze for the first time at what used to be
a
face. They don't have to hold someone sobbing in despair the first
time
they are allowed to look into a mirror. Her face had been stolen
from
her. Once she said to me that "No, I was never a great beauty,
but just
sometimes a man would look at me and show interest. Now they look
away
trying to avoid seeing the horror that I have become." It was
not you
who has been called out on every suicide attempt. Not you who was
phoned
at 2, 3, 4 in the morning by the hospital. One day she will succeed.
I will consider it was murder. It will go down in the statistics
as
suicide. And you will sleep soundly in your bed knowing there was
no
gun in her hand to protect her when she most needed it.
June has moved several times now. The man
was jailed. The authorities
let him write to her from jail, even telling her when he was being
let
out - Why? Because he told them he was her boyfriend. She is afraid
to
go out. Afraid to be home alone. Afraid to answer the door, the
phone,
open a letter.
You Robert, and all of the other cowards
who want to shirk their
responsibilities, are directly responsible for the suffering of
every
victim who was denied the means of defending themselves.
--
Fenris Wolf
>> Assuming he didn't have a gun himself.
>
> Please explain how it could have been
any worse?
You are imagining a woman alone in her house carrying a gun, but
in a
society that allows people to carry guns. So her assailant would
have
known this. So what would he have done? Pulled a gun first, or
attacked in a way that denied her the opportunity to pull out her
gun.
How would that have been worse? She would have been carrying a
heavy
dangerous weapon around with her all the time, every time she picked
up her handbag she would have been reminded of the fear that drove
her
to carry it. She would be mentally imagining pulling it out and
under
what circumstances she would have to do that. She would be, like
millions of women in America are, living with the constant anxiety
of
carrying a weapon, the fear of attack. A fear built upon by the
man
who sold her the gun and the men who trained her to use it, the
men
who told her dozens of stories about the dangers of being a woman,
stories that happened to a friend of a friend, stories that sound
so
real, so frightening, so well designed to encourage her to carry
that
gun. And for what? It would not guarantee her safety. It might be
used
against her. It might be found by her children and used to kill,
the
American gun accident statistics show that fear to be real.
It would not give her protection, it would not give her peace of
mind,
it would corrode that peace of mind. It would be a constant reminder
of her fears. And so it would be to the *thousands of other women*
who
could see themselves in that same circumstance but who would be
just
as unlikely ever to be a victim of such a crime as she would have
thought herself to be.
Do you really think it would be a better world in which every woman
opened her front door to the Avon lady with her hand on the butt
of a
pistol? Is America a wonderful model of safety and freedom from
fear
of crime?
Of course the other way it could have been worse if the criminally
minded assailant was armed with his own gun and pre-empted her drawing
her own is that he could have overpowered several people with his
gun.
I don't want to draw any diagrams here, I'm not in the business
of
building up fears, but just try to imagine the scene for a few
seconds. Yes, it could be worse.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
Fenris Wolf wrote:
> In article <2i4dqaFi3tdfU1@uni-berlin.de>, Martin Willett
> <ignoredmailbox@ntlworld.com> writes
>> Fenris Wolf wrote:
>>> In article <c9ik5j$6jk$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>,
Certic
>>> <PJS@winDEAT HTOSPAMMERSwaed.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>> Assuming he didn't have a
gun himself.
>>>
>>> Please explain how it could have
been any worse?
>>
>> You are imagining a woman alone in her house carrying a
gun,
>
> No, that is not what I said. I said that she had been out and
came
> back to find him in the house. Even so, please explain how
a woman
> alone in her house carrying a gun could be worse than a woman
> attacked with no means of defence?
>
Right this is the heart of the fantasy here. I freely conceded
that
with access to a time machine (with myth mode and apocryphal
overdrive) I would be more than happy to slip a .38 revolver
into
that woman's hands in that scenario. But that isn't going to happen,
is it?
For there to have been a gun in her hands she would have had to had
one,
and as she is not the only woman who could attract a stalker out
of
the blue we also sensibly have to consider potentially arming all
potential victims everywhere otherwise we are in the silly situation
of playing a totally bogus game of what if. If not all potential
victims then at least a significant number, otherwise the scenario
is
bizarre. What if she had a fully trained rottweiller attack dog?
What
if she was trained in kung fu? What if she had a video camera enabled
intruder detector with live feed to her local police station? What
if
she was out that day, or had a man reading the gas meter? You have
to get real. OK, what if she had a gun? How could she have a gun,
it
isn't reasonable to postulate she had a lucky premonition and only
those people who know they are about to become victims carry guns
and
just for the days they might need to. To make the scenario realistic
we have to imagine a significant proportion of the single female
population being routinely armed, and then look at the consequences
in
the round.
First point, how old do you have to be to carry a gun? Plenty of
11
year olds get mugged and raped, are you suggesting we allow all
11
year olds to carry guns? Or do they have to rely on no protection
for
the common good?
>> but in a
>> society that allows people to carry guns. So her assailant
would have
>> known this. So what would he have done? Pulled a gun first,
or
>> attacked in a way that denied her the opportunity to pull
out her
>> gun.
>
> All things are possible. Just as it is possible that he would
not
> have put his own life at risk by attacking an equal as opposed
to
> someone unlikely to be able to fight back. Ask yourself which
target
> bullies choose to persecute.
>
>>
>> How would that have been worse? She would have been carrying
a heavy
>> dangerous weapon around with her all the time,
>
> Please explain wh
| |