The DC mayor is a POS....

[Levin]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

I can't. Something is offensive if it one deems it to be such. The term "offensive" is by definition a subjective term.

If something isn't offensive to me then I really have a hard time understanding why someone else would find it offensive. Conversely, if something offends me, I really don't understand why it wouldn't offend others. I'm careful to avoid taking offense and I'm careful about doing/saying something that I personally would consider offensive but I conclude it is impossible to learn what every other individual on the earth would consider offensive. Heck, I think it is impossible to learn about and try to avoid subjects that only the individual I interact with consider offensive. Because it is impossible, I deem it irrational to consider or worry about what someone else might think is offensive.

You're imagination and empathy are lacking, then.

There's tons of stuff that I don't find offensive but I can see why it would be offensive to others.

The Danish muslim cartoons didn't offend me; I can see how they'd be offensive to devout Muslims.

The look of a woman's bare arms doesn't offend me; I can see how it would offend early devout Mormons who wore garments.

In some limited situations, the burning of the American flag in protest doesn't offend me; I can see how that would be offensive to others.

The list goes on and on. Exercise your imagination and empathy just a little, and you'll think of some too.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Levin

I ascribe to the camp that you can understand how something could be offensive to others without being offended yourself.

As to your follow-up questions; when analogies and such are apt, they're apt. So if comparisons to the struggle for racial equality are apt, use them by all means. When you opportunistically cover up a sloppy and weak argument with them, I'll take aim and fire. But not b/c I think it is a big deal or that anybody here are racists; but to get some clarity on the arguments being deployed.

Okay, but again, no one every made the analogy to the "struggle for racial equality." The analogy which I made, which I have backed off of, was that each was a case of a locality declining to follow a ruling of the SCOTUS. That was the extent of it. I think this is why people are scratching their heads over the use of the word "offensive."

Offensive is also a word just like racist that frequently gets tossed out as a proxy for an actual argument. I think that is part of what is being reacted to as well.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Okay, but again, no one every made the analogy to the "struggle for racial equality." The analogy which I made, which I have backed off of, was that each was a case of a locality declining to follow a ruling of the SCOTUS. That was the extent of it. I think this is why people are scratching their heads over the use of the word "offensive."

Offensive is also a word just like racist that frequently gets tossed out as a proxy for an actual argument. I think that is part of what is being reacted to as well.

Just re-read your posts, and I back off as well (I know, this isn't as much fun when we agree). When you made the comparison, you thought that DC had just reenacted the gun ban. And in that case, the comparison to Wallace and massive resistance would be apt. And it's fun to pick on Waters when he doesn't know what he's talking about, so I got a little carried away.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Levin

Just re-read your posts, and I back off as well (I know, this isn't as much fun when we agree). When you made the comparison, you thought that DC had just reenacted the gun ban. And in that case, the comparison to Wallace and massive resistance would be apt. And it's fun to pick on Waters when he doesn't know what he's talking about, so I got a little carried away.

I agree, but I've forsworn picking on Waters for a while.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Levin

Just re-read your posts, and I back off as well (I know, this isn't as much fun when we agree). When you made the comparison, you thought that DC had just reenacted the gun ban. And in that case, the comparison to Wallace and massive resistance would be apt. And it's fun to pick on Waters when he doesn't know what he's talking about, so I got a little carried away.

"I backed off" i.e. "I lost".

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

"I backed off" i.e. "I lost".

Didn't lose at all. I am absolutely right about everything I said, especially as it pertains to your sorry ass points.

I understood UtahDan as comparing massive resistance in the South to the new DC law. Problem was, he didn't understand the new DC law. When he understood the new DC law, he backed off, and I said, "oh, you said those things when you didn't understand the new DC law, okay, I get it; how you understood it, your analogy would have been apt."

I ask again: can you read?

[MikeWaters]

I understood it, and I haven't backed off at all.

This is a travesty and heads are going to roll, I assure you.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I understood it, and I haven't backed off at all.

This is a travesty and heads are going to roll, I assure you.

You're out of touch.

Nobody's head will roll; elected officials respond to their constituency. Congress won't touch this (they left the total ban in place for 30 years, a fact none of you will respond to), and it will simply get challenged in the courts.

I win; you lose, now go ride your bike slowly up a hill.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Levin

You're out of touch.

Nobody's head will roll; elected officials respond to their constituency. Congress won't touch this (they left the total ban in place for 30 years, a fact none of you will respond to), and it will simply get challenged in the courts.

I win; you lose, now go ride your bike slowly up a hill.

you forget 1994.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

you forget 1994.

and 2006 for that matter.