Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:actually... doing abit of reading into that post... its "pimplefaced queerbacks drinkers"

im assuming you can figure out the pimple faced bit there... and i think id be spot on if i went out on a limb and said that "queerbacks" in proper english terms.. is "Starbucks" the Tyranid-esque coffee chain.

Pimple faced… I’m guessing because he assumed the people who didn’t like Bush were young. One bad thing about being young is pimples.

Queerbucks… there’s a thing about Starbucks being for sophisticated urbanites, while rural folk prefer Dunkin’ Donuts. One of the more fun measures of whether a state will lean GOP or DNC is the Starbucks to Dunkin’ Donuts ratio. Queer, I’m guessing because PanamaG is somewhere between 12 and 15 years old, and going through that stage where everything bad gets called gay. I think it has something to do with virginal insecurity, because it’s funny how quickly it stops after people start having sex.

I think its more of a use thing. Gay doesn't have a meaning until it starts having a meaning, so it becomes a catchall insult that in effect means virtually nothing but shows slight disapproval. As the user grows and matures they learn its actual use and begin to run into situations where it is feasible to use conversationally in a non derogatory sense. Past a certain age it just becomes kind of a throwback insult only used by the ignorant or lazy (I use it all the time and have had quite a few gay friends. "Aww man thats gay" doesn't really mean that something is homosexual any more than it means its happy. It's just an inaccurate catchall.

ShumaGorath wrote:I think its more of a use thing. Gay doesn't have a meaning until it starts having a meaning, so it becomes a catchall insult that in effect means virtually nothing but shows slight disapproval. As the user grows and matures they learn its actual use and begin to run into situations where it is feasible to use conversationally in a non derogatory sense. Past a certain age it just becomes kind of a throwback insult only used by the ignorant or lazy (I use it all the time and have had quite a few gay friends. "Aww man thats gay" doesn't really mean that something is homosexual any more than it means its happy. It's just an inaccurate catchall.

Fair point, it’s probable people stop using once they start getting to know people that are gay. Kids do seem to start using it at the onset of puberty though, and it seems too coincidental to me that that’s anything other than an effort to prove they themselves are not gay. From there it seems to make sense that that goes away when they actually proper show they’re not gay by having sex. So it’s probably a combination of the two things.

Unfortunately, I think the use of the term 'pimple-faced' implies that he is far older than should be acceptable for the use of 'gay' as a derogatory term.

Also, I read one that the main reason for the use of homosexual epithets during the onset of puberty is due a burgeoning recognition of general sexuality. Essentially the argument was that people are born sexual, not homosexual or heterosexual, and that any leaning to one side or the other is imprinted in us from a very young age. As such, pubescent boys will tend to ridicule perceived 'homosexuality' in others as a result of denying their own, similar tendencies.

There were some other interesting conclusions as well. Like the notion that a man could exhibit a sexual (because sexual really only denotes 'between the sexes')preference for men, without ever having sex with one. The obvious derivation being that anyone who prefers to spend time 'with the boys' (or 'with the girls' if the subject is a woman) is likely a homosexual.

dogma wrote:Unfortunately, I think the use of the term 'pimple-faced' implies that he is far older than should be acceptable for the use of 'gay' as a derogatory term.

Also, I read one that the main reason for the use of homosexual epithets during the onset of puberty is due a burgeoning recognition of general sexuality. Essentially the argument was that people are born sexual, not homosexual or heterosexual, and that any leaning to one side or the other is imprinted in us from a very young age. As such, pubescent boys will tend to ridicule perceived 'homosexuality' in others as a result of denying their own, similar tendencies.

There were some other interesting conclusions as well. Like the notion that a man could exhibit a sexual (because sexual really only denotes 'between the sexes')preference for men, without ever having sex with one. The obvious derivation being that anyone who prefers to spend time 'with the boys' (or 'with the girls' if the subject is a woman) is likely a homosexual.

I'm not sure I agree with that. If sexual orientation is imprinted at an early age, why are the great majority of humans heterosexual? And why ridicule those precieved homosexual tendencies if it is just something that people have? Why wouldn't those who were "imprinted" homosexual ridicule perceived heterosexual. What about cultures that don't necessarily recognize sexual orientation, or accept homosexuality amongst men as long as they remain acceptably "masculine".

Didn’t Lord obama promise to bankrupt the American auto industry when he was running for prez???

Or was that the coal industry??

I don’t know... maybe it was both.

Careful, apparently it's WRONG to disrespect the President. Or something.

reds8n wrote:Careful, apparently it's WRONG to disrespect the President. Or something.

Not wrong, as in illegal. I can call Bush a redneck or mention that Obama stocks his liquor cabinet with Kool-aid mixed with vodka. But just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should.

Get the hell out of here. Every republican I listen to and watch still respects the president they just don't like what he does and is inevitably going to do.

In fairness maybe he ignores him ?

actually, for someone in my position, it is illegal for me to say certain things about the nation's leaders... one of the downsides to being in the military.

(of course, there are loopholes to those regs)

Ensis Ferrae wrote:actually, for someone in my position, it is illegal for me to say certain things about the nation's leaders... one of the downsides to being in the military.

(of course, there are loopholes to those regs)

I guess he is the highest leadership in the armed forces.

I appreciate this might sound odd coming from a country where we technically have royalty, but I do find it quite odd how .....well, reverent isn't quite the right word, but how polite you are towards your leaders. I'm constantly amazed how polite your press corp were/are with your politicians and the public at gatherings.

reds8n wrote: I appreciate this might sound odd coming from a country where we technically have royalty, but I do find it quite odd how .....well, reverent isn't quite the right word, but how polite you are towards your leaders. I'm constantly amazed how polite your press corp were/are with your politicians and the public at gatherings.

Where I come from it is called civility. That is somethign you do, at least in public.

I'm sure getting the chance to choose the president helps too.

Isn't it the American Dream that any child could grow up to be president?

Or own the Presdident, which is even better.

"Look, Pres, I contributed $10MM to your campaign and the Democratic Party. I officially own your butt."

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm sure getting the chance to choose the president helps too.

Isn't it the American Dream that any child could grow up to be president?

Thats called B.S., and a parent should never tell a child that.

Grignard wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm sure getting the chance to choose the president helps too.

Isn't it the American Dream that any child could grow up to be president?

Thats called B.S., and a parent should never tell a child that.

ahh, but anyone who's seen "Thank You for Smoking" will know that that's exactly what this country runs on, B.S.

though i whole heartedly agree that parents shouldnt tell their kids that if they want to be, they can be a rock star, or pro wrestler, or fireman.... parents should tell their kids that they need to work, that without putting in the effort and work, none of their dreams will come true, even if it is to be one of the aforementioned things.

Grignard wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm sure getting the chance to choose the president helps too.

Isn't it the American Dream that any child could grow up to be president?

Thats called B.S., and a parent should never tell a child that.

No little timmy, you're not good enough to be president. The country is false and you should be ashamed of living.


I much prefer the optimistic method of child rearing, where you instill the fact that with enough hard work and determination one can accomplish anything. It's the basis of the meritocratic system, and even if somewhat skewed and broken in america its still something to aspire too.

sebster wrote:By the way, JonHwangDD, I think you assumed I was talking about you in my earlier post,

We disagree on most things, but I think you’re being honest in all your posts, and coming from a consistent POV. You just happen to be wrong

Oops, yeah, I made that incorrect assumption.

Huh? Your worldthink doesn't allow for the very concept of "wrong" as everything is relative and contextual. I, OTOH, don't have such restrictions, so from my POV, you are wrong.
____

Ensis Ferrae wrote:The industry in the US has indeed been producing substandard product for years, yes.

But, they have also been relying heavily on they "showcase" cars. ie. the Mustang, Corvette, and Viper

NASCAR is the biggest aberration to the world of automobile racing ever created.

i am a huge fan of F-1 and the WRC (God, i cant wait to be living in germany!)

Actually, GM and Ford make some decent cars overall. Better than a lot of what is made in Europe.

Every car manufacturer depends on "halo" cars to some extent. Nissan GT-R, Ford Mustang, Chevy Corvette, Cadillac Escalade, BMW M, Porsche 911. Toyota is what? Camry? OK.

If NASCAR were still stock(-based) car racing, like WRC / DTM / BTCC / JTCC, I'd be all for it. Actual Chevy Camaros racing against actual Ford Mustangs and Dodge Chargers would be interesting and enjoyable to watch.

I'm not sold on F-1 or GTPs, as the cars are divorced from reality. Now if you look at the GT1s, based around high-end works cars from Lambo, Ferrari, Aston, *that* is interesting.
____

Kilkrazy wrote:Given the easy availability of low emission vehicles from makers such as Toyota, they may actually be cheaper than American made cars as well as being cheaper to run.

The only reason many of these low emission vehicles are cheap is because they're subsidized by the state and the Feds. If many those cars had to stand on their own, nobody would buy them.
____

Kilkrazy wrote:1. California is a democracy. I doubt they will really manage to outlaw cars.

California does a lot of stupid things. I can easily see the left wing tax cars to the point at which they're largely unaffordable to the average consumer.

The only reason many of these low emission vehicles are cheap is because they're subsidized by the state and the Feds. If many those cars had to stand on their own, nobody would buy them.

Yes, because volkswagon and toyota produce substandard product. And because we don't subsidize our own auto industries for meeting emissions standards.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Given the easy availability of low emission vehicles from makers such as Toyota, they may actually be cheaper than American made cars as well as being cheaper to run.

The only reason many of these low emission vehicles are cheap is because they're subsidized by the state and the Feds. If many those cars had to stand on their own, nobody would buy them.
____

Kilkrazy wrote:1. California is a democracy. I doubt they will really manage to outlaw cars.

California does a lot of stupid things. I can easily see the left wing tax cars to the point at which they're largely unaffordable to the average consumer.

I seem to remember that it was a good thing for California to be a democracy when they voted for proposition 86 or whatever it was called, the "Gay Marriage not to be called Gay Marriage" law thing.

Is it bad to be a democracy now they might vote in favour of small cars?

@Shuma: I'm guessing you don't own a Prius and live in Cali. In California, they gave away *perpetual* car pool lane stickers to Hybrid owners to stimulate sales. That's a *huge* subsidy benefit that is worth more than the sticker price of the car.

The purpose of taxation and subsidies is to influence consumer behaviour -- e.g. tax on cigarettes and booze.

If government policy decides low emission vehicles are a good thing, tax on high emission vehicles and subsidy to low emission vehicles is a sensible measure.

Grignard wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with that. If sexual orientation is imprinted at an early age, why are the great majority of humans heterosexual?

The theory is that they aren't. Instead, everyone actually functions according to a standard of bisexuality that is codified through identification with a given term. Someone who identifies as a homosexual, for instance, very likely still possesses heterosexual urges, but simply chooses to suppress them for one reason or another. Its kind of a 'best fit' picture of identity. People use words to ease social interactions by constructing boundaries of good taste. However, these words are rarely fully encapsulating, and frequently determine how a person should behave, rather than how they want to behave. For example, if I am to be straight, I should only sleep with women, even if I want to sleep with men.

Grignard wrote:
And why ridicule those precieved homosexual tendencies if it is just something that people have?

Because kids are stupid, and incapable of accepting difference as a result of both limited experience, and what tends to be a hard black/white moral upbringing. Adults, on the other hand, tend to do it either because they have been socialized in that fashion, or because they see their own internal urges as deviant.

Grignard wrote:
Why wouldn't those who were "imprinted" homosexual ridicule perceived heterosexual.

They do. I've been called things like 'breeder', or 'mundane' by any number of the homosexuals I've known, and I've know quite a lot of them. However, in adolescence, when people are first beginning to perceive their power over others, it is very difficult to go against the established grain, and in the US that established grain is Christian sexuality. Its also important to realize that children are not fully imprinted. That only happens when you have made the choice to be gay, straight, or bi, and even then the imprinting isn't total as someones sex does not fully describe what they might represent to you.

Grignard wrote:
What about cultures that don't necessarily recognize sexual orientation, or accept homosexuality amongst men as long as they remain acceptably "masculine".

That's kind of the idea behind the theory. Because sexuality is imprinted it can vary from culture to culture. There are Polynesian peoples, for example, that have what is effectively a third gender that can be described as 'feminine male'. These are men that are raised to be, for lack of a better word, prostitutes for the other men in the village. They are treated as women in day-to-day interactions, but serve a very different role in that they are exempted from child rearing, and most social responsibility. Their purpose is to remain visually appealing, and have lots of sex while side-stepping the inconvenient reality of unplanned pregnancy on an island with limited resources.

Kilkrazy wrote:I seem to remember that it was a good thing for California to be a democracy when they voted for proposition 86 or whatever it was called, the "Gay Marriage not to be called Gay Marriage" law thing.

Is it bad to be a democracy now they might vote in favour of small cars?

If the issue were actually put up to a democratic vote, that would be a good thing.

California voted twice to ban gay marriage, first by law, then by Constitutional amendment.

As with the summer of gay marriage, emissions & mileage will not be set by the people's will, but instead will be set non-democratically by a handful of people who are not directly answerable to the people.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
If the issue were actually put up to a democratic vote, that would be a good thing.

California voted twice to ban gay marriage, first by law, then by Constitutional amendment.

Unfortunately, the 14th amendment makes ANY ban on the basis of identity illegal. Sorry.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
As with the summer of gay marriage, emissions & mileage will not be set by the people's will, but instead will be set non-democratically by a handful of people who are not directly answerable to the people.

You mean your representatives? Dude, you don't live in a democracy, you live in a polity/republic. The reason we don't live in a democracy is so that the majority cannot exercise a tyranny over any minority.

Kilkrazy wrote:If government policy decides low emission vehicles are a good thing, tax on high emission vehicles and subsidy to low emission vehicles is a sensible measure.

I have no problem with that, provided that the policy is implemented in a sensible way.

The problem is that most of the emissions law and subsidy is based on junk science.

For example, oxygenated gasoline costs more, contains less usable energy, and has no effect because it is automatically compensated for by modern engine management systems. Same with Ethanol, which is really a sop to the farmers.

Our fuel taxes don't even cover our ongoing infrastructure maintenance, and we expect mass-transit to self-fund, while ignoring the huge automobile subsidies (i.e. roads & maintenance).

So most likely, if left to the legislature instead of the scientists, we will have more stupid law that taxes and subsidizes things that purport to support low emissions, but actually do nothing of any value or benefit.

dogma wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:California voted twice to ban gay marriage, first by law, then by Constitutional amendment.

Unfortunately, the 14th amendment makes ANY ban on the basis of identity illegal. Sorry.

Fortunately, the 14th Amendment doesn't matter, because the California Constitution will simply require that all marriages be between a man and a woman, and is silent whether either (or both) partners identify as gay, straight, or asexual.

Therefore, it is in full compliance with the 14th Amendment.

Whether it has disporportionate impact is irrelevant. After all, we have *plenty* of examples of disproportionate impact (e.g. permanent disenfranchisement of felons), and those are all OK.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Fortunately, the 14th Amendment doesn't matter, because the California Constitution will simply require that all marriages be between a man and a woman, and is silent whether either (or both) partners identify as gay, straight, or asexual.

Unfortunately, that isn't what the text of Proposition 8 states. 'Will no longer recognize' means the annulment of previous homosexual marriages, as well as the ability to deny things like visitation rights to out of state married couples.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Therefore, it is in full compliance with the 14th Amendment.

Nope, try again.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Whether it has disporportionate impact is irrelevant. After all, we have *plenty* of examples of disproportionate impact (e.g. permanent disenfranchisement of felons), and those are all OK.

Yes, because felons lost their 'civil right' to vote by not behaving in accordance with the law. That's what a civil right is. The right to do something until you are no longer a civil individual. Homosexuality violates no law, and hence cannot be described as uncivil behavior.

Maybe americans can stop putting V8s into everything. The enviroment will be pleased.

Papadoc wrote:Maybe americans can stop putting V8s into everything. The enviroment will be pleased.

Yes....its only Americans who put large engines into automobiles. None of the European manufacturers performance vehicles have anything at all similar, not at all.....

That isn't even apropos to the topic.