So what about the blankity-blank blanks shooting blanks while doing the blipity-blah?
Da da da da dah duh … wheeeze … cough
Koanheads!
Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!”
“Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”
Does a blank have Buddha nature?
What is the sound of one blank clapping?
Personally, I hate BLANKS. I throw every single one of them I can in the fire pit at my hunting cabin. And I never tell anyone of them. And if I’m ever asked, I’ll deny everything.
You people have no idea the frustration of getting a bad round that won’t fire.
Fucking BLANKS! Now I’m pissed!!!
I am really, really blankin prejudiced against this thread at this time of morning.
Yeah, that’s just like a blank.
Yeah you’re just jealous, cause unlike Blanks, all of you are just Full of Its.
I can tell the OP is one of the good ones. Unlike the rest of those flippin’ Blanks.
Blipity-blah, grasshopper!
Say it loud,
I’m blank and I’m proud.
Regards,
Shodan
Liberal: * If what describes them describes me, then our labels should be the same.*
By that reasoning, Lib, and according to your standards of judgmentalism as demonstrated in this thread, you’re bigoted against people who are bigoted against bigots. You morally judgmental spider-wannabe bigot, you.
Or something. Honestly, Lib, you’re making no sense at all to me on this one. I have seen you react so negatively when somebody, for example, makes a nasty crack about “Republicans” without any qualifiers, that I’d have thought you’d be the last person to defend offensive stereotyping and generalizations of the sort that tim’s complaining about.
I tell you what, if I read “blipity-blah” one more time, I’m just gonna collapse in a fit of giggles.
Why is that word so friggin funny?
Well, I thought the OP was right-on. . .and I’m not being sarcastic. This is the Pit, so I wanted to make that clear.
I particularly hate this sort of thing. Many times I’ve see this kind of exchange play out:
“Blanks are blipity-blah!”
“How could you say that? All Blanks aren’t blipity-blah!”
“I didn’t say all Blanks, did I?”
Perhaps not, but you might as well have. If you actually meant “some” or “a few”, you could, should, and probably would have said that in the first place. And really, granting that there is some slight possibility that some Blanks might potentially not be blipity-blah is not, in most cases, terribly broadminded.
Exactly. Which is why a non-bigoted remark like Lib’s “There are, for example, well documented problems with a substantial number of Indians and liquor for various reasons and because of specific twists of history” isn’t really relevant to the OP’s rant.
The sort of thing tim seems to have been complaining about is more along the lines of “Those Indians are such effin’ drunks”, which is an offensive and unwarranted stereotyping generalization, and will not unreasonably brand you as a bigot.
Yes, in the interest of true insight and understanding, it’s good to be able to recognize that there are often circumstances (in the stereotyper’s own experience, or in the historical situation) that do supply at least a grain of truth in a stereotype. But that doesn’t make the stereotype justified or excusable.
On the contrary, I make no moral judgment at all. I haven’t said that anything is morally wrong with bigotry. And even if it is, morality is a matter that is between a man and his God or conscience. I myself am a bigot toward many things, although race and sexual orientation, for example, are not among them.
That was likely due to your mistaken presumption that I consider bigotry to be immoral in se.
I don’t cut Republicans any slack either. See this post.
Unlike your sojourn into the topic of my “reasoning” and “standards”, I suppose. I’ll bet $10 against $1 that you will find for yourself a handy relevance in your own posts that all your earthly effort would be unable to find in mine.
Liberal: *I don’t cut Republicans any slack either. *
I didn’t say you did. My point was that you don’t tend to cut slack to stereotyping generalizations against Republicans, which is why I was surprised to see you objecting to tim’s complaints about stereotyping generalizations in general. I thought you didn’t like stereotyping generalizations, and apparently neither does tim.
I’ll bet $10 against $1 that you will find for yourself a handy relevance in your own posts that all your earthly effort would be unable to find in mine.
Huh? Is this a contest about who has better posts or something? I’m not about to bet on myself in any such competition, for sure. I was just pointing out that I thought that something you said about stereotypes missed the point that the OP was trying to make.
If you have similar criticisms of my posts, go ahead and post 'em, by all means. Criticizing weak spots in one another’s arguments is an important part of fighting ignorance, isn’t it?
I don’t know, but if I see a blank in the road I’ll kill him, just to be on the safe side.
Who said I was objecting? Just because I tell you that the stove will burn your fingers does not mean that I object to your touching the stove.
But neither you nor I were talking about weakness or strength. We were talking about relevance. You had said that my posts were irrelevant to the OP, and I pointed out that so then was yours inasmuch as it was about me and my posts.
I admit I have issues with blanks. People think they are safe just because they don’t have a bullet like live ammo but it was a blank that killed Jason Lee and John-Erik Hexum. I say round up all the blanks and ship 'em off somewhere safe.
There are only two types of people I can’t stand – bigots and Blanks.
Also,
All Blanks walk in single file. At least the only one I ever saw did.