Grench bashing? I meant French bashing.
But the Grench are a bunch of assholes too.
And where might you hang your hat, since it’s curiously not in your profile?
Wherever it is, I’m sure we can find a few morons living there and make a few generalizations of our own.
:rolleyes:
Case in point.
To the OP:
Exactly why do you feel you need to use the term retard as an insult? Are you no better than an elementary school child, being not only intolerant but naive that your hateful words slur an entire group besides the person or group you are already slurring?
Get a bigger vocabulary if yours is too small that ‘retard’ has to be included as an insult.
Oh… and your generalizations blow monolithic chunks as well.
Well said, Mockingbird
Oh! I thought it was “Why are there so many freaking petards in the Republican party?” That, in my opinion, is a much more valid question.
And come November I look forward to seeing a fair number hoisted on their own.
From m-w.com:
Moron: a mildly mentally retarded person
imbecile: a person affected with moderate mental retardation
idiocy:extreme mental retardation
So, based on your theory, we can’t call anyone moron, imbecille, idiot, etc, because we are offending retarded people?
Anyone calling somoene else an idiot is “not only intolerant but naive that [their] hateful words slur an entire group”? :rolleyes:
This oversensitivity in today’s culture is one of the things people on the Right are correct about.
What’s the other one?
First of all, as **laigle ** said
Do I need to cite volumes and volumes of examples? This is not a research paper; it is a Pit thread. I found some quotes that I thought were characteristic and used them in the OP. Let’s not pretend that the attitudes they represent are not widespread, as Machetero has so helpfully illustrated
Secondly, when you say “safely conclude that all southerners are idiots”, *where * did I say that “all southerners are idiots”?
All I said was there seem to be a lot of idiots in the South, which if you understand logic, does not necessarily imply that everyone in the South is an idiot.
It’s not curious.
Well, when I started the thread, I was focusing on Randal Vinson (a Republican), but then I decided to add the info about the “Democrats” in Tennessee.
While they consider themselves Democrat, the Slate article mentions
and in any case, the “opinions” they expressed in the article are straight GOP talking points that the Republicans use to “convince” people to vote for their guy.
So, I would still consider their opinions “Republican thinking”, so the that’s why I decided to leave the title of the OP as is.
I don’t get this whole “you can’t talk about group characteristics” deal.
Say 80% of Republicans are regular churchgoers, and 20% of Democrats are. Can’t you say that Republicans, on average, are more churchgoing that Democrats?
Well, one might say “you’re ignoring the 20% of Republicans who aren’t churchgoers”. So what? If we always have to make a statement precise by always stating the exact percentage of a group that has a given characteristic, it would make public discourse very cumbersome and inefficient.
I should note that you make an “odd accusation against a particular group” yourself. You imply that everyone in the group that makes “odd accusations against particular groups” has a strangely provincial world view. Isn’t that a blanket statement about a whole group, without looking at each individual in that group to see if they really have a provincial world view?
And in any case, I did not state in the OP that all Republicans are retards. So, I am not making a blanket statement about Republicans. I just said that a lot of morons seem to be Republicans, or buy into stupid Republican rhetoric and vote Republican in national elections.
Now, there are many who vote Republican because of non-stupid reasons (they want lower taxes for example), so even though they vote Republican, I don’t consider them morons.
But someone who thinks badly of Kerry because he looks French or talks French is a damn moron.
One other one: taxes are too high.
well, sure you can, if you indeed have the data to support that statement, a quality singularly lacking in your posts. Your conclusions (“a lot of retards” are Republican) seems to be based on casual observance from folks you have contact with, a few stray quotes from columnists, rather than, say empirical data. (and yes, though this is the pit, we do still expect that assertions can be proven)
and again, you seem to be short on data wrt “a lot” of morons seem to be Republican/buy into stupid Republican rhetoric.
well, if their main objection to Kerry is because of xenophobic crap such as this, I’d agree that their thinking process leaves much to be desired. But that’s something that can be said about many, not just Republicans, Democrats, idiots who can log into a message board, etc.
HOW
MANY
CITES
DO
YOU NEED?
… before you admit that the Republicans use the stupidest attacks against their opponents, because they know they work on morons who vote.
I could do more of these, like showing how many are “convinced” by “the liberals want to take all your guns away” “argument”, AND WHICH SIDE THEY END UP VOTING FOR, but why bother?
Joke coming, be warned:
So, why does the Republican Party have all the idiots, while the Democrats have all the liberals?
Because the Republicans got first pick.
Polerius, I have to say, your first example seems to be a simple bit of clever wordplay, not intended to convince anyone of anything they don’t already believe.
Your second cite is simply a group of unsubstantiated statements about Republican attacks on John Kerry. Not quotes of what they’re actually saying, so not really what I’d call very convincing for your thesis.
Your third cite seems to consist of fair criticisms, until you get to the last quote. Which is attributed to an unnamed ‘Bush advisor.’ Unattributed quotes are pretty unconvincing. Everything else, while you and I are free to disagree with the sentiment, does not strike me as being mindbogglingly stupid.
Your final cite is a bit more substantial, but the first part seems to be building solely off the same quote in your third cite, and then using Rush Limbaugh as synonomous with the Republican party as a whole. Again, neither strikes me as indicative of general brain poison.
So far, your four cites seem to come down to only one unattributed incident, and Rush Limbaugh, which isn’t what I’d call very convincing.
All I’m really trying to say is that boronic* reasoning is used by both major parties, and all politicians. No party is innocent of this kind of rhetorical shorthand, so judging either party’s membership by this alone isn’t what I’d call very reasonable.
boron, boronic, and mind poisoning are all related to the following reasoning: In nuclear physics there are substances that absorb neutrons, preventing a chain reaction. I believe that there are also people who absorb ideas, and poison the normal manner of ideas begetting other ideas by colliding with open minds. Those people are known as borons. The quality of being a boron is known as being boronic. And any kind of discourse that depends on squashing ideas rather than spurring them is known as mind poisoning.
That is disingeunous, as are your remarks about the right.
Perhaps you could stand to be honest. There are more than enough complaints to be made about both sides. Intellectually dishonest terms like ‘retard’ are not the way to go.
Because the Libertarian Party is too disorganized for them?
"…six retards freaking, FIVE…GOL-DEN…RINGS!!!
Four swollen turds, three clenched wrens, two curdled ducks
And the Partridges in the cem-et-ry!!!.."