Somebody please shove a chainsaw up Whoopi Goldberg's ass

I disagree. I believe the “quibbling” is over the term explanation. We all agree than an “excuse” involves some level of mitigation for a bad act, or at least an attempt to mitigate it. An explanation does not necssarily involve mitigation, or an attempt at it.

Contrapuntal insists that it does. Contrapuntal is wrong.

Bite me. Really. I have abandoned that position, pointed it out to you, and still you harp on. Fuck way the hell away off.
And Miller? It’s spelled “spelt,” you jingoistic Anglophobe.

What the fuck are you blathering about?

YOUR post equates “excuse” with “explanation”, and insists the latter necessarily implies the former.

Is this not correct?

READ THE THREAD DUMBASS. SHEESH. For that matter, I NEVER equated “excuse” with “explanation.” I said “some explanations are excuses.” Not all. Some. Please tell me this is not eluding you.
I made a statement. Objections ensued. I responded. More objections ensued. I amended the statement. Try to keep up.

Well excuse me for not keeping up with posts that we are apparently composing at the same time.

Do you claim there is a substantial difference between these two statements?

“And yes, explanations for bad behavior are excuses.” – from post 116

and

“An explanation of bad behavior is an excuse, by definition.” – from post 56.

Where did you say some explanations are excuses?

I agree with this. I just don’t see that you posted that. Please enlighten me.

You almost have it. Really. The cookie is so close. Want it? Gooood. Go back to post 116. Read a little bit further than you did before. Not much, sweetie, just a teensy bit. You can do it!

Here’s the moneyball, right here. I have since amended it to. An excuse is an explanation of bad behavior, by definition. Which is a quote from post 109. Which you would know if you would only READ THE THREAD.

**“Explanations for bad behavior are excuses.” ** The set of “explanations” is larger than, and includes, the set of “explanations for bad behavior.” Therefore some, not all, explanations are excuses.

You put quotes around what you claim you said, that being “some explanations are excuses.”

Had you actually said that, I never would have posted a disagreement with you.

You NEVER said that until you claimed you said it, and you put your claim in quotes.

And now you apparently claim that your statement earlier statements imply “some”. Which they didn’t. Your actual words insisted that ALL explanations were excuses.

Buh bye.

That’s a fair point. Obviously, explaining why the sky is blue wouldn’t be the same as excusing the sky for being blue. That would be absurd, and clearly not what you were trying to say. But by the same token, that sort of absurdity was not the basis for any of the disagreement you got over that statement. Every criticism leveled in this thread against “All explanations are excuses,” applies equally well to, “All explanations for bad behavior are excuses.” So focusing on the “bad behavior” modifier is a bit of a red herring. The paraphrase was technically inaccurate, but the intent behind it was clear, and did not effect the arguments being made against it.

That was a mistake. The quotes should have gone around “some explanations.” Or better yet, italics.

If and only if all explanations are explanations for bad excuses. Are they? Do you really believe that?

Not man enough to acknowledge my amendment? Don’t let the door hit you in the ass.

Nevertheless, I never *insisted *that all explanations are excuses, as **BJ **maintains, and it is churlish and thickheaded to belabor the point after I have conceded, and amended the statement.

Breathe slowly. Wipe away the froth.

What are you saying here? I do not understand.

I did not say that all explanations are excuses. You said that I did say that all explanations are excuses.

All explanations are excuses if and only if all explanations and explanations for bad behavior mean the same thing. Do they?
And anyway, I abandoned the position, and amended the statement, all before you came in to piss and moan about it. What’s the point?

Nowhere that I see did Whoopi say anything equivalent to “Don’t be hard on Johnny”.

Are you saying that all explanations for bad behavior are excuses? That’s no less stupid than anything else you’ve been posting.

My apologies for hijacking the hijack. I have no excuse.

Richard Parker: What’s not fair? I didn’t know a damned thing about Vick’s background until I took the time to look it up to see if he had been raised without exposure to schooling, a library, newspapers, computers, television, loving parents and other adults who cared about his welfare – before I posted my opinion.

As a former high school teacher of mostly Black students, I know that the opportunities are there for those who take advantage of it. We have sent students to Harvard. We have seen one of our students take his place among the Trustees of Vanderbilt University. And one of the students across town at another urban school (I’ve mentioned that I coached/judged her at forensic competitions) became what I believe is the world’s first Black female billionaire.

I also checked to see if maybe Whoopi had lived in the South. She hadn’t.

I agree with you that explanation is not the same as an excuse, but in this case I do believe that what Whoopi stated on television was definitely offered as a defense. The Associated Press agrees with me:

Source: Yahoo AP quotation

Whoopi deserved pitting for her defense of Vick and for not checking out her facts before perpetuating ignorance about Southerners and the South before a television show of millions of people.

I see these stereotypical myths introduced into casual conversations almost daily. How would you fee if the rest of the country thought that everyone from NYC was an Archie Bunker and they treated you, Richard Parker as if you were? How would you like it if people constantly made the wrong assumptions about your education, your religion and your politics?

In this day and age, she also deserves pitting for defending someone who is that cruel while being a hero and role model to so many kids! I wonder how many young minds will think that cruel is cool because Vick did it. He wasn’t just any old football player. If they love him the way I love Steve McNair (even when he plays for Baltimore), they must have a lot of question marks in their eyes.

You seem to have forgotten that I also acknowledged earlier that the culture obviously exists to some extent or Vick wouldn’t have been involved. But it isn’t common – in the way that Goldberg implied – or I would have known about it.

Cockfighting isn’t “common,” but I’ve known about that. I wouldn’t know where to find one, but I could probably ask people who know people who could tell me. But then I’ve known a great assortment of people who would trust me from my years as a teacher. Most people don’t get to know that many people that closely in a year’s time year after year.

You quoted one journal article that said that the subculture of dogfighting was centered in the South. These writers said they went to fourteen fights. Did they mention how much effort they put into finding fights outside of the South? On what basis did they judge that the dogfighting is centered here? Who are these people? What are their credentials? Is this a peer reviewed journal? I’m really skeptical, but I will keep an open mind since I know nothing about dogfighting except that it is not common in the South in general.

I can’t get too frustrated with anyone from NYC. I’ve never been to Manhattan, but I’ve wanted to go since I was a child and used to pretend I lived in a penthouse. I got as close as the George Washington Bridge once. My quick glimpse of Yankee Stadium took my breath away and the memory still does. Besides, the only genuine New Yorker that I ever knew here in Nashville was named Parker. We pronounced it “Paah-kur” because one of his New York friends visiting called him a “big faaht” once and we couldn’t stop laughing. That was much more impressive than our word for that bodily function.

Please excuse me if I seemed angry with you. I was transferring my anger at Whoopi onto anyone who seemed to be taking her side. You were very convenient.

And most of the time I adore Whoopi. I just love the South – most of the real South – more.

All of us have to stop creating so much pain everywhere.

Goddamnit! Nincompoops assault me in squads. Look. IT’S JUST A THREE PAGE THREAD. Read it. Try to sound out all the big words. Read it again, this time for comprehension. Apologize for being such a dumbass. Move on with your life.

Might be closer than you think… you don’t really think all those people are really paying $15 just to go see a bunch of rocks, do ya?

Honestly, I think this thing is mostly a media tempest. Ever since Rosie made good press, they’ve been looking for more fights on the View. I don’t think Whoopie actually meant to excuse Vick’s behavior, but she contributed to the conversation in such a way that it could easily look like she was and the media jumped all over it.

Zoe has a good point about her steryotyping the south, and pitting her for that is probably justified. But I’ve already given this stupid story more brain power than it’s worth.

Essentially yes. So that brings us back to you saying what you are insisting that you are not saying.

An explanation is an explanation. Doesn’t matter what moral value we attach to the subject of the explanation. It’s just a goddamn explanation.

Excuses are something else. Sometimes an excuse is an explanation (“Don’t be hard on Johnny the Criminal; he was molested as a child”.) Sometimes an excuse is not an explanation (Yeah he committed rape, but it was only a gray rape".) Excuses are not necessarily an explanation. And an explanation is not necessarily an excuse.

What makes an explanation an excuse is NOT determined by whether it is explaining bad behavior. What makes an explanation an excuse hinges on whether the explainer is attempting to downplay the seriousness of the action and the offensiveness of the actor with their explanation. Goldberg did not do that.

So getting riled up over what she says only makes you look like the media’s puppet. They put her comments in the news with the expectation that the masses would jump on it and start foaming at the mouth. So now we’re all supposed to think Whoopie and The View represent cutting edge television, and we’re all going to watch and eagerly wait until the next bit of juicy watercooler-level controversy pops out of the Star-Rosie-Whoopie seat, and oooooh how the inevitable outrage and shock and dismay will make our hearts beat fast like we’re actually talking about something important and relevant!