# Fred Phelps has gone too far...



## zao_89 (Feb 17, 2006)

http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2184


----------



## Ripper (Jul 1, 2006)

Wow...wonder if he puts on body armour before leaving for church in the morning


----------



## noobcake (Mar 8, 2006)

Wow...those people are nuts...


----------



## FenderMan (May 24, 2007)

...unbelievable...and awful and so anti-anything good...


----------



## Lester B. Flat (Feb 21, 2006)

Yep. Another fine product from the Stupid People Factory. He apparently has his own version of the Bible, too. When he's describing hell, he quotes _Isaiah 14:9-18; " and where they exchange bitter, sarcastic recriminations with fellow Minnesotans, kith and kin"_. I never knew Minnesota was in the Old Testament?

Some of his family members are lawyers because no one in their right mind would ever represent him.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I watched this a couple of weeks ago and found it quite interesting.........
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=20&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> I watched this a couple of weeks ago and found it quite interesting.........
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=20&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0




Hard to believe anyone could be so backward and, well....crazy.


Sad


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

zao_89 said:


> http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2184


Watch the Larame Project sometime.

The world is full of such nut jobs.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

I have a coworker who left the US because of hate mongering nutbars like him. 

I wonder what it would be like if Rev. Fred was kidnapped and parachuted in the middle of Church and Wellesley.


----------



## FenderMan (May 24, 2007)

It is unfortunate that the political climate in the States right now allows people like this to flourish. Somehow I expect he is going to be very surprised with his lot in the after life.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2007)

Fred Phelps is a shining example of what religion has to offer the human race.


----------



## FenderMan (May 24, 2007)

ClintonHammond said:


> Fred Phelps is a shining example of what religion has to offer the human race.


Or at least the worst it has to offer, which is altogether too often IMO.


----------



## Lester B. Flat (Feb 21, 2006)

Here's one of Fred's famous "websites".

http://www.godhatescanada.com/


----------



## FenderMan (May 24, 2007)

Lester B. Flat said:


> Here's one of Fred's famous "websites".
> 
> http://www.godhatescanada.com/



Doesn't surprise me. What is interesting (for lack of a better word) about these extremists (pick any religion) is that they often use quotes from the Holy books and use them out of context or twist them beyond the meaning that was intended. It is always good to be aware of these freaks so that you can protect yourself against them and their "teachings" but I honestly wonder if it is better to ignore them, while maintaining an awareness of them and the bad that they sow, than talk more about them and give them inadvertent publicity. I'm thinking more of the media-sense than in discussions here which are probably more instructive.

I guess the question is if the media ignored his protest in Minneapolis and ignored his press releases would that nullify and neuter his movement or force him into more extreme behaviour. In his case, I think it would neuter his movement. He doesn't strike me as violent as much as he strikes me as deeply disturbed.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2007)

"Or at least the worst it has to offer"
No... Priests raping children while the 'leaders' turn a blind eye is worse.... 

There's no good reason for religion


----------



## Lester B. Flat (Feb 21, 2006)

You really can't call Phelps a fundamentalist. He's not trying to convert anyone. Everyone is going to hell except him and his family. Four of his children (who are going to hell) have disowned him and say his church is just a cover/haven for his personal hate, and that he really isn't religious at all. He was a lawyer who was disbarred and flipped his lid. 60 of the 73 members of his congregation are family members.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

You should see what his cousin Pastor Fred is up to...

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0707/potter.html evilGuitar:


----------



## adamthemute (Jun 18, 2007)

Disturbing. I'm sure 'God' would be proud.


----------



## adamthemute (Jun 18, 2007)

Robert1950 said:


> You should see what his cousin Pastor Fred is up to...
> 
> http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0707/potter.html evilGuitar:


Haha! That site can't be real...


This is quote worthy:


> It is a common belief among Baptists that the (Harry Potter) novels are nothing more than carefully crafted training manuals for junior Satanists.


----------



## Ti-Ron (Mar 21, 2007)

This is from Godhatescanada.com:

"**** have a 3 point agenda: 1) decriminalize sodomy, 2) add **** to the protected classes as victims like blacks, and 3) criminalize Gospel preaching against ****. Canada's doom is now irreversible!"

Sorry, but it's the funniest thing I ever heard in my life! Did they listen to Team America? Maybe there's a mistake, maybe it's F.A.G. (Film Actors Guild)! 
But seriously how people can believe a man like him?


----------



## adamthemute (Jun 18, 2007)

******** with guns, booze, and bibles.


----------



## FenderMan (May 24, 2007)

ClintonHammond said:


> "Or at least the worst it has to offer"
> No... Priests raping children while the 'leaders' turn a blind eye is worse....
> 
> There's no good reason for religion


I agree, stuff like that is shameful and hurtful and way too prevalent and in fact worse than Phelps as you point out. For me any crime that involves a child gets me really bent out of shape and has even more so since I first held my daughter. The other one that really gets me riled is when people use religion to further a restrictive/negative political agenda such as the religious right is doing in the States or the Islamic extremists are trying to do to the world. I could go on for hours about how each of those are issues are wrong.

However there is still a lot of good things that religion offers. Look at Sally Ann. They are a Christian based organization. They are walking the walk so to speak (I'm not affiliated with them in any way), helping the poor and homeless, providing care to the outcasts from our society and even providing counseling services to those in need. I know of several Buddhist organizations in New York that do the same thing. I can probably come up with many other examples but I think you get the point. There is probably as much good in religion as there is bad. If you want to disagree that is fine, I just thought I should point out that there is some good out there :food-smiley-004:

I should point out that those kind of crimes, which are extremely horrible, would still happen, and do happen, outside of religion. The reason is that people commit those crimes and people fail. The human race is chalk full of this type of history, which is rather unfortunate.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2007)

"there is still a lot of good things that religion offers. Look at Sally Ann."
One does not need religion to be charitable... 


"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
*Steven Weinberg*, _quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999_
_US physicist (1933 - )_
"seriously how people can believe a man like him?"
Think about how dumb the average person is.... now remember that HALF the people are dumber than that!


----------



## noobcake (Mar 8, 2006)

...So what are you saying Clinton, that you're not an average person? ...Oh that's right, I forgot, Clinton Hammond is a globally acknowledged genius with a nobel prize for drama under his belt, farting around guitar forums, spewing all sorts of crap about everything:zzz:. You seem to think so highly of yourself, keep your ego in check bud, you're no less average than the rest of us.


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

_
Think about how dumb the average person is.... now remember that HALF the people are dumber than that!_


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2007)

"You seem to think so highly of yourself"
Only when compared to some.... 

"spewing all sorts of crap"
You seem to already have that task all sewn up.... 

"keep your ego in check bud"
"Check" this.... and I'm NOT your 'bud'


----------



## FenderMan (May 24, 2007)

ClintonHammond said:


> "there is still a lot of good things that religion offers. Look at Sally Ann."
> One does not need religion to be charitable...


Very true. But you are letting your cynicism block your view.


ClintonHammond said:


> *Steven Weinberg*, _quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999_
> _US physicist (1933 - )_
> "seriously how people can believe a man like him?"
> Think about how dumb the average person is.... now remember that HALF the people are dumber than that!


Yup! People can suck, no doubt about it


----------



## Ripper (Jul 1, 2006)

adamthemute said:


> ******** with guns, booze, and bibles.



Hey ******** are no more racist or bigoted than any other group of people. 
Using the term "*******" to pigeon hole people is no different than what ol' Fred is doing.
Check out the definition of ******* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*******


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2007)

"you are letting your cynicism"
What you call cynicism, I call clear sight.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

.........And so is claiming this to be an American thing, or a thing of people from a part of the political spectrum. For the record, all countries have produced nutcases like this, as well as all parts of the political spectrum..............


----------



## FenderMan (May 24, 2007)

Accept2 said:


> .........And so is claiming this to be an American thing, or a thing of people from a part of the political spectrum. For the record, all countries have produced nutcases like this, as well as all parts of the political spectrum..............


Definitely not an American thing, at least that was not was intended in any of my comments. The reality is in the US (which is a step backwards from where they have been) and other countries hate is allowed to propagate when it suites certain political agendas. Those agendas can be left, right or somewhere in between. FWIW I don't think most Americans are hateful or condone these agenda's, it is just that these fringe groups are getting more airtime than they deserve, or warrant.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

The US has made vast improvements in the area of hate. Canada seems to be going backwards though. Just recently the RCMP have been reporting evidence of the return of the FLQ. We had a huge terror cell busted in Toronto, we have gang violence in Toronto and Vancouver, how is that for hate tied to political agenda? I think Freedom of Speech is paramount and I think this religious nutcase has the right to say whatever he wants. I actually object to the people in the video I posted who hate the guy so they attack his grandchildren. There is a big difference between saying stoopid things and committing stoopid acts.........


----------



## I_cant_play (Jun 26, 2006)

I can't help find some of this amusing..

"The bridge stood in place by the word of God"

funny how I always thought those engineers and construction workers had something to do with it.....ah well...live 'n learn...


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

zao_89 said:


> http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2184



obviously a raving lunatic


----------



## I_cant_play (Jun 26, 2006)

> Fred Phelps is a shining example of what religion has to offer the human race.


I would agree with you if it weren't for some notable exceptions. I really do have a problem with most organized religious groups but I think religion itself has a lot to offer in terms of making one think about things in a philosophical kind of way. It's just that people always twist it around to suit their own needs. Even if religion wasn't around all the same problems would be, we would just have to blame them on something else..


----------



## FenderMan (May 24, 2007)

Accept2 said:


> The US has made vast improvements in the area of hate. Canada seems to be going backwards though. Just recently the RCMP have been reporting evidence of the return of the FLQ. We had a huge terror cell busted in Toronto, we have gang violence in Toronto and Vancouver, how is that for hate tied to political agenda? I think Freedom of Speech is paramount and I think this religious nutcase has the right to say whatever he wants. I actually object to the people in the video I posted who hate the guy so they attack his grandchildren. There is a big difference between saying stoopid things and committing stoopid acts.........


I hadn't heard about the FLQ returning, which is sad if that is true. I really agree with your Freedom of Speech comments though, I think that is critical to a free society and to peace. However I know of 3 cases in the States where that right has been violated by the administration. Bush signed an executive order (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html) that disallows criticism of the war in Iraq. Maybe both countries are going backwards. I don't know. I just know that I wish for more peace in the world.

Regarding hate, I hope you are right but I think maybe the word I am looking for is intolerance which is a more subtle form of hate and perhaps more accurately describes what I have seen (personal and up close). As for the gang violence, I see that everywhere and find it disturbing. It is not usually hate related as it is drug related, at least out here.


----------



## FenderMan (May 24, 2007)

I_cant_play said:


> I would agree with you if it weren't for some notable exceptions. I really do have a problem with most organized religious groups but I think religion itself has a lot to offer in terms of making one think about things in a philosophical kind of way. It's just that people always twist it around to suit their own needs. Even if religion wasn't around all the same problems would be, we would just have to blame them on something else..


My point exactly!


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2007)

"making one think about things in a philosophical kind of way"
Philosophy is useless blather... It will never put strings on your guitar, or beer in your glass, or bread in your mouth.

Fred Phelps isn't worth the attention this thread is giving him.


----------



## mario (Feb 18, 2006)

A few months ago, my sister attended a funeral of a high school friend who was killed in Afghanistan. I can't imagine what would have happened if these sick people were at the funeral.


----------



## noobcake (Mar 8, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "making one think about things in a philosophical kind of way"
> Philosophy is useless blather... It will never put strings on your guitar, or beer in your glass, or bread in your mouth.
> 
> Fred Phelps isn't worth the attention this thread is giving him.


Sometimes there's more to life than the things you can see. What is philosophy now, may just pave the way to a reality in the future. Wasn't it the supposed "lunatics" and philosophers who first claimed that the world was round?


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2007)

"Wasn't it the supposed "lunatics" and philosophers who first claimed that the world was round?"
No... it was observational scientists....


----------



## noobcake (Mar 8, 2006)

It was initially viewed as ridiculous to claim that the world was anything other than flat. What may seem like philosophy and ridiculous theories might in fact be a reality that we haven't discovered yet. "Philosophy is useless blather"?, I don't think so.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

noobcake said:


> ...So what are you saying Clinton, that you're not an average person? ...Oh that's right, I forgot, Clinton Hammond is a globally acknowledged genius with a nobel prize for drama under his belt, farting around guitar forums, spewing all sorts of crap about everything:zzz:. You seem to think so highly of yourself, keep your ego in check bud, you're no less average than the rest of us.


Are you insinuating that people who are interested in guitars aren't geniuses? :wink:


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2007)

"It was initially viewed as ridiculous to claim that the world was anything other than flat."
And Observational Scientists, by observing and collecting data and supporting or destroying hypotheses, not philosophers, proved that claim to be in error....


----------



## noobcake (Mar 8, 2006)

NB-SK said:


> Are you insinuating that people who are interested in guitars aren't geniuses? :wink:


.
No that's drummers:wink:


----------



## Michelle (Aug 21, 2006)

Ripper said:


> Hey ******** are no more racist or bigoted than any other group of people..............


Exactly Ripper! The thing I like about '********' is that they are mostly honest and genuine folk, if they don't like something about you, they will say it, not pretend that they are 'cool' and then stab you in the back. And if they like you they will say it and mean it!

Seems to me that ******** are more 'stable' and predictable than yuppies.


----------



## FenderMan (May 24, 2007)

Michelle said:


> Exactly Ripper! The thing I like about '********' is that they are mostly honest and genuine folk, if they don't like something about you, they will say it, not pretend that they are 'cool' and then stab you in the back. And if they like you they will say it and mean it!
> 
> Seems to me that ******** are more 'stable' and predictable than yuppies.


No truer word has been spoken....One of the reasons I liked selling out in the country when I was in sales. Very honest folk out there although they weren't all ********.


----------



## I_cant_play (Jun 26, 2006)

Clinton,

you know Einstein's quote "Imagination is more important than knowledge"? He is one of the most important observational scientists of the last 100 years and he could see the importance of being able to see past what's right in front of you. Philosophy keeps the mind open and encourages us to challenge what we currently consider the status quo.


----------



## I_cant_play (Jun 26, 2006)

> Fred Phelps isn't worth the attention this thread is giving him.


couldn't agree more. All this shows is that there is some really nutty people out there. Like we didn't know that already..


----------



## noobcake (Mar 8, 2006)

I_cant_play said:


> Clinton,
> 
> you know Einstein's quote "Imagination is more important than knowledge"? He is one of the most important observational scientists of the last 100 years and he could see the importance of being able to see past what's right in front of you. Philosophy keeps the mind open and encourages us to challenge what we currently consider the status quo.


Yep, right on the money :food-smiley-004:


----------



## Ripper (Jul 1, 2006)

Michelle said:


> Exactly Ripper! The thing I like about '********' is that they are mostly honest and genuine folk, if they don't like something about you, they will say it, not pretend that they are 'cool' and then stab you in the back. And if they like you they will say it and mean it!
> 
> Seems to me that ******** are more 'stable' and predictable than yuppies.


Exactly. ******* isn't a geographical thing, its a frame of mind and a way of life. It's unfortunate that the term has gotten associated with bigots and racists. Interestingly enough, I know far more "suits" that are inclined that way. I am a *******, but I was also raised that a good person is a good person and an a**hole is an a**hole, it's got nothing to do with colour, religion or the rest.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> Fred Phelps isn't worth the attention this thread is giving him.


...i would agree, were it not for the fact that a significant number of right wing christians subscribe to his repugnant views, both publicly and secretly.

for that reason alone, he needs to be "exposed".

-dh


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2007)

" you know Einstein's quote"
I know that a lot of people can be quoted out of context to further the goals of a lot of people.... So I dismiss the quote.

Besides... Imagination and philosophy are not the same thing....


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "you know Einstein's quote"
> I know that a lot of people can be quoted out of context to further the goals of a lot of people.... So I dismiss the quote



...perfectly logical.



-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

jroberts said:


> "*******" was being used in the sense of a perjorative, which is what 'ol Fred deserves. And whether "********" are more racist or bigoted than anyone else depends on how your using the term. The most common meaning I associate with "*******" is someone who is racist, bigoted, mysogynistic and uneducated. I guess some people interpret it as meaning having "down home values", but given the widespread negative connotations of the term, I'm not sure why anyone would wear it with a badge of pride.



...gretchen wilson?



you're correct, jr, but sometimes its a matter of "reclaiming" an identity that has been robbed of its dignity by name callers. blacks have done this with "******" and gays have with words like "queer", "****", "***" etc.

in the case of "*******", it might be best to give them the benefit of the doubt.

-dh


----------



## I_cant_play (Jun 26, 2006)

Clinton,

I suppose music is more concrete than philosophy? Music *can* put strings on your guitar and food in your mouth? Ok, it can put food in your mouth but if it doesn't, it's not worth doing?

oh and 

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/imagination_is_more_important_than_knowledge-for/260230.html

there's your context. my point stands.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

jroberts said:


> Exactly. I don't get it.
> But "n*****" is a perjorative applied to someone who is black. By reclaiming the word, a black person is saying "Yes, I'm black and proud of it.". "f**" and "queer" are perjoratives applied to someone who is gay. By reclaiming the word, a gay person is saying "Yes, I'm gay and proud of it." I don't think the same reasoning applies to the term "*******". The term "*******", as a perjorative, is applied to someone who is racist, bigoted, mysoginistic and uneducated. Are people who apply the term to themselves really reclaiming it by proclaiming "I'm racist, bigoted, mysoginistic, uneducated and proud of it?" Most aren't, but some actually are. Unfortunately, its sometimes difficult to tell which is which. I, as someone who doesn't hold those views, would certainly never want to hold myself out as a "*******".



...those characteristics have come to be apllied to so-called ********, i think, but i'm out of my depth here. i'm not sure which came first, chicken or egg. its my understanding that the term "*******" originally applied to simple hillbillies and backwoods folk.

-dh


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

I always thought "*******" referred to a rural type who likely worked on a farm all day in the sun, hence the term "*******".

Since the stereotype has been that southern rural types were Klansman (a stereotype that is likely about as accurate as other stereotypes - not very!) it has come to mean a bigoted person.

Everybody seems to avoid traditional terms and dictionary definitions in favour of trendy slang, to the point where you have to know the context to understand the meaning of a word in a given situation. Then we get into ridiculous arguments because of assuming the other fellow meant a word by our slang definition when he had a completely different definition of his own!

For instance, how about "homophobic"? This is generally understood to mean someone being anti-gay (there's another!) when it truly means you're afraid of homosexuality. Actually, in practice it's often just another nasty word hurled at someone as an ad hominem attack when he disagrees with you. This technique is much easier than answering his argument. Personally, I've never had a problem with gays but I have a BIG problem with anyone who thinks he's entitled to anything he wants and that anyone who disagrees must be discriminating against him! Some of the disgusting antics that happen on a Gay Pride parade float should be banned, period. If it were heterosexuals on the float they would be charged with public indecency. What makes gays in a parade above the law? For that matter, who gave the folks on that float the right to speak for all gays? Still, if you lodge a complaint you'll be instantly branded as "homophobic". If you have gay friends that stand up for you they'll be labelled as "sellouts".

Nobody gets picked on more than a black Republican!

The term "racist" is perhaps the most misused of all. Most times no one cares a damn about someone's race. The issue is most often a clash of culture, which has little or nothing to do with the colour of one's skin. 

Anyhow, I guess my point is that if people insist on not paying attention to a common language or definition it's no wonder they get bogged down in silly arguments.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> IFor instance, how about "homophobic"? This is generally understood to mean someone being anti-gay (there's another!) when it truly means you're afraid of homosexuality. Actually, in practice it's often just another nasty word hurled at someone as an ad hominem attack when he disagrees with you. This technique is much easier than answering his argument. Personally, I've never had a problem with gays but I have a BIG problem with anyone who thinks he's entitled to anything he wants and that anyone who disagrees must be discriminating against him! Some of the disgusting antics that happen on a Gay Pride parade float should be banned, period. If it were heterosexuals on the float they would be charged with public indecency. What makes gays in a parade above the law? For that matter, who gave the folks on that float the right to speak for all gays? Still, if you lodge a complaint you'll be instantly branded as "homophobic". If you have gay friends that stand up for you they'll be labelled as "sellouts".
> :


...its not quite that simple. as i am sure you are well aware, there is a rather huge gap between complaining about _specific_ antics during the gay pride parade and labeling those antics as in any way representative of so-called gay behavior. that is, unquestionably, homophobic.

however, i was not aware that there are acts of public indecency during the gay pride parade, unless one defines nudity or partial nudity as indecent. 

and which should be addressed in a separate thread, i'm thinking.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

jroberts said:


> That's how language works.
> Take your own example of the word "racism". Suppose that you adopt what may be a technically correct definition of a "racist" - someone who believes that various races have defining characteristics (darker or lighter skin, for example), and you go around telling everyone that you're a racist. Are you honestly going to be suprised that people react negatively towards that? Language evolves. When a word develops a generally accepted definition that may differ from a previous meaning, the word takes on new meaning. If a large proportion of society sees the term "*******" as being synonymous with "bigoted, racist, mysoginistic and uneducated", that becomes part of the word's meaning.



...and all the more reason for backwoods and hillbilly folk to reclaim the original meaning, don't you think?

-dh


----------



## Ripper (Jul 1, 2006)

jroberts said:


> Not really. I don't think that the term has ever had any particular social importance or significance. I'm not sure why someone whould want to "reclaim" it. I guess I'd like to know what people here who consider themselves "********" think the word means.


Strong family values-where family and close friends matter above all else, a personal code of honour, self-reliance, strong work-ethic, honesty, a love of the simple things in life, not marching to someone else's drummer just because it is the thing to do, a strong connection with the land and nature, personal pride and telling things like they see them. Not paying attention to stereotyping and to what others think. Not putting money and the collection of material goods as the way to judge a person's success or worth.

I don't expect everyone to understand the term, or to embrace it or even like it. Everyone is going to have thier own take on what a ******* is.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...sometimes its a matter of *"reclaiming"* an identity that has been robbed of its dignity by name callers. blacks have done this with "******" and* gays* have with words like "queer", "****", "***" etc.
> 
> -dh


I always try to be gay (happy).


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

To over simplify it, and I guess stereotype it, the term ******* has alway been defined by the following to me..

"HooWee!. Let's all done get liquored up and go out shoot anyone who ain't like us. Yeehaw Sho'nuff"

That is what the definition of a ******* has always meant to me. So maybe you can understand why I could never figure out why anyone would want to be called one.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Robert1950 said:


> To over simplify it, and I guess stereotype it, the term ******* has alway been defined by the following to me..
> "HooWee!. Let's all done get liquored up and go out shoot anyone who ain't like us. Yeehaw Sho'nuff"
> That is what the definition of a ******* has always meant to me. So maybe you can understand why I could never figure out why anyone would want to be called one.



...that's called a stereotype, which is a way of imposing our perceptions on others and, too often, defining a specific group by its worst individuals. we are all guilty of stereotyping, so we should at least be self-aware in that regard. people who tire of being stereotyped often resort to throwing those stereotypes back in our faces.

-dh


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

Wild Bill said:


> I always thought "*******" referred to a rural type who likely worked on a farm all day in the sun, hence the term "*******".
> 
> Since the stereotype has been that southern rural types were Klansman (a stereotype that is likely about as accurate as other stereotypes - not very!) it has come to mean a bigoted person.
> 
> ...



"Everybody seems to avoid traditional terms and dictionary definitions in favour of trendy slang, to the point where you have to know the context to understand the meaning of a word in a given situation. Then we get into ridiculous arguments because of assuming the other fellow meant a word by our slang definition when he had a completely different definition of his own!"

Actually, both the speaker and the listener could arguably have committed an error. The listener could have misinterpreted the meaning of the expression and the speaker could have used an expression that he or she should have known was not correct in the social context in which the the communication took place.

Has for homophobia, although it has a certain meaning in the clinical context, it is most commonly used to describe the hatred and prejudice. It's all about what is understood by the speakers as being correct in the context in which the language is used, regardless of the original definition or usage of a word or expression. 

As for the ad hominem attack...well, that wouldn't happen if the word had a different connotation. 

Regardless of what purists may say (like your former grade 10 English teacher), it's perfectly acceptable for speakers to change a language in order to meet their needs as long as the context permits it. Simply put, as society and culture changes, so do the needs of the speakers. As a result, new words and expressions are created while older ones are either kept intact, changed, or forgotten. In other words, it's in the nature of language to change because it is determined by it's users. Few of us would be able to understand if we heard a native speaker of Middle English speaking.


Think about this: only dead languages don't evolve. 

PS. Psychiatrists would probably say that homophobia the fear and the prejudice are connected because hatred is sometimes the expression of one's fears.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2007)

********... 

Inbred... Ignorant... poor hygiene... Drunken... Armed... 

Ya... real "salt of the earth"


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

NB-SK said:


> Regardless of what purists may say (like your former grade 10 English teacher), it's perfectly acceptable for speakers to change a language in order to meet their needs as long as the context permits it. Simply put, as society and culture changes, so do the needs of the speakers. As a result, new words and expressions are created while older ones are either kept intact, changed, or forgotten. In other words, it's in the nature of language to change because it is determined by it's users. Few of us would be able to understand if we heard a native speaker of Middle English speaking.


Ah yes, but in Middle English times we had only sporadic literacy with no printing press or Oxford English Dictionary to nail down some standards! How much has English changed in the LAST couple of centuries? All of us have no problem understanding Charles Dickens. Or Ivanhoe.

I would agree with you that as culture changes we evolve new expressions but to change the very meaning of words seems to be asking for trouble and stemming from sheer laziness, IMHO.

If we change the meaning of words willy nilly then we attack the very reason we have words - communication! By your lights, we can only have accurate communication between those of the same culture! Those of different backgrounds or even ages will have great difficulty understanding whatever you're trying to say. The dictionary definition will have been replaced with slang indigenous to a local group.

I'm reminded of a discussion I once had in a bar in Texas. Salesguys like me had flown in from all around the continent for some product training in those newfangled microprocessor chips. The guy on the stool beside me was complaining at how his boss had chewed him out for his atrocious spelling in his sales reports.

As his moaning and groaning wound down he ventured the old idea that English should be spelled phonetically "Spell it like it sounds!".

I told him I would agree, but first we had to settle on whose "sounds" would be the standard. After all, he was from Texas and I was from Canada. We both had very different accents! Others down the bar got into the spirit. It was great fun to tease each other about the way we all spoke "The Queen's English" so differently.

I eventually won with my proposal to standardize on the accent of my Newfoundlander relatives but it cost me more than a couple of rounds to buy a majority vote!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2007)

"All of us have no problem understanding Charles Dickens."
Ya... but I'll bet there's big chunks of contemporary, vernacular English they wouldn't understand.

"to change the very meaning of words"
Happens all the time.... Like it or not GAY today doesn't mean what GAY used it... and there's no going back. (Just for one example)

"complaining at how his boss had chewed him out for his atrocious spelling in his sales reports"
... Too dumb to at least run a spell checker is too dumb to deserve a job. Same with not knowing the difference between Their There and They're.... 

"the way we all spoke "The Queen's English"
Having heard both Newfs, and Texans speak, I wouldn't say either of you speak "The Queen's English" as much as you slip it a roofie, drag it into a back alley and violate it like a high-school cheerleader.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Let me simplify my previous response even more. I've always used ******* as a derogatory. It is what I always thought it was. A deserved insult. A racist, turnada alley, inbred, intolerant yahoo. So when that C&W singer, what's her name, has ******* engraved on her fretboard, I just could never get it.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

Wild Bill said:


> Ah yes, but in Middle English times we had only sporadic literacy with no printing press or Oxford English Dictionary to nail down some standards! How much has English changed in the LAST couple of centuries? All of us have no problem understanding Charles Dickens. Or Ivanhoe.
> 
> I would agree with you that as culture changes we evolve new expressions but to change the very meaning of words seems to be asking for trouble and stemming from sheer laziness, IMHO.
> 
> ...


Oh, but you're wrong. There were standards. How could people have communicated if there weren't? Grammaticality, semantics, lexis, etc... They are independent from literacy. See, in linguistics we talk of spoken and written text. They both follow their own standards. One can be illiterate and speak perfectly well.

Another problem with your claim that the dictionary is a necessity: orthography concerns written texts and words change meaning in different contexts. Heck, some words are distinct to a particular context. Of the top of your head, how many South African and Australian English words do you know? Not many, I'm sure...but there are many in the dictionary.

Which brings me to your example of Canadian and Texan English. Brace yourself...they are both (to a certain point) American English. Yes, American English. Canadian spelling (just a cosmetic difference with American English) was created in the late 19th century by a particularly nationalistic politician who spoke in a Canadian accent that practically nobody uses anymore, 'Canadian dainty'. He was concerned with the fact that Canadians were sounding more and more American...which is natural when you consider that in some parts of Canada at that time, the vast majority of people were born in the US or had parents and grandparents who were born there (you can thank the American Revolution for that). But, there are differences as Canadian and Americans live in very distinct societies from one another (they have a 'melting pot', we have a 'multicultural society'). Given that they are closely related dialects of the same language, it's only natural that they both share features that would make it easy for their speakers to understand each other...if they make a conscious effort to communicate using vocabulary that is shared between the two and take care to soften their accents. 

Apparently, you realize that there's no point in trying to get a Texan to speak like a Newfoundlander and a Newfoundlander like a Texan. They have different linguistic needs. Just for the sake of the argument, imagine that the Texan is a rancher and the Newfoundlander is a fisherman. They would have very different vocabulary as their occupations and the world around them would be different. The culture isn't the same, either.

As for language not having changed in the last 200 years...Do you think Charles Dickens would have understood it if you told him, "My mouse isn't working. I think my laptop got a virus."? English now has far many more words than it did back then. You can thank the technological advances that have been made since the time Dickens wrote about the industrial revolution.

PS. I could have pulled out a couple of my reference books, thrown a few relevant quotes at you. Could have also changed the lexical content of my text to more technical linguistics terms...but that would have been a mistake. I would have come off as being a condescending jerk because, as far as I know, you are not a linguist and this is an informal discussion, not an academic debate. That partially explains my rather sloppily constructed paragraphs (why would I bother since internet forums often follow a format that is closer to spoken discourse than written discourse). As I was saying, it's all about what is right in a particular context.


----------



## Ripper (Jul 1, 2006)

Robert1950 said:


> Let me simplify my previous response even more. I've always used ******* as a derogatory. It is what I always thought it was. A deserved insult. A racist, turnada alley, inbred, intolerant yahoo. So when that C&W singer, what's her name, has ******* engraved on her fretboard, I just could never get it.


In lots of places it's anything but derogatory. Just like anything though it can have both positive and negative uses.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

NB-SK said:


> Oh, but you're wrong. There were standards. How could people have communicated if there weren't? Grammaticality, semantics, lexis, etc... They are independent from literacy. See, in linguistics we talk of spoken and written text. One problem with your claim that the dictionary is a necessity: orthography concerns written texts and words change meaning in different contexts. Heck, some words are distinct to a particular context. Of the top of your head, how many South African and Australian English words do you know? Not many, I'm sure...but there are many in the dictionary.


I made no attempt to deny that English adopts new words. Considering that English has done far more of this than perhaps any other language on the planet would have made that a very hard point to defend.



NB-SK said:


> Which brings me to your example of Canadian and Texan English. Brace yourself...they are both (to a certain point) American English. Yes, American English. Canadian English and Canadian spelling was created in the late 19th century by a particularly nationalistic politician who spoke in a Canadian accent that practically nobody uses anymore, 'Canadian dainty'. He was concerned with the fact that Canadians were sounding more and more American...which is natural when you consider that in some parts of Canada, the vast majority of Canadians were born in the US or had parents and grandparents who were born there (you can thank the American Revolution for that). Given that they are closely related dialects of the same language, it's only natural that they both share features that would make it easy for their speakers to understand each other...if they make a conscious effort to communicate using vocabulary that is shared between the two and take care to soften their accents.


Again, you've slid around my point. I was talking about how standardized spelling made words recognisable over vast geographies and hundreds of years, just as standardized meaning makes those words understandable to every English speaker, regardless of his culture. This was meant to show that if your point of linking meaning to culture was valid then there would be no standard and things would "drift" in meaning to the point of losing intelligibility.



NB-SK said:


> Apparently, you realize that there's no point in trying to get a Texan to speak like a Newfoundlander and a Newfoundlander like a Texan. They have different linguistic needs. Just for the sake of the argument, imagine that the Texan is a rancher and the Newfoundlander is a fisherman. They would have very different vocabulary as their occupations and the world around them would be different. The culture isn't the same, either.


My point precisely! Glad we agree! They can have a distinctive accent and their own cultural slang to as much of a degree as they want.

However, if things are not kept at least somewhat in check nobody outside of their little balliwick will have a clue what they're talking about!



NB-SK said:


> As for language not having changed in the last 200 years...Do you think Charles Dickens would have understood it if you told him, "My mouse isn't working. I think my laptop got a virus."? English now has far many more words than it did back then. You can thank the technological advances that have been made since the time Dickens wrote about the industrial revolution.


Again, you've slid around my point. I never denied the emergence of new words. I simply took exception to changing the meaning of existing words according to the slang of local "cultures". Dickens would have had enough problems indeed with new vocabulary. You would have him re-learning the definitions of his existing vocabulary!

There's a term which escapes me at the moment to describe this situation. Anthromorphism? Egocentricity? Maybe someone can help this old guy and chime in with the right word. I'm talking about how some folks think its ok to change language or express themselves in local cultural terms and ignore the fact that they are not the entire planet! They are a small segment of a larger whole and making such differences works only in their own small pond. Outside of it they merely sound "quaint", like an inner city rapper.

Or should we each just choose our own word?:wink:

Anyhow, some readers might appreciate this anecdote. Back in the 70's a bunch of us young bachelors shared a house, with a common tv room. There was a commercial for a frozen fish company that was airing at the time. It showed a Newfoundlander in sou'wester rain gear and boots, standing in a stormy surf and extolling the virtues of that brand of frozen fish.

Now, of course he spoke in a thick Eastcoaster accent. So they sub-titled him! The words were printed across the bottom of the screen as he chattered away.

The first few times we saw this commercial I just didn't get it about the sub-titles. He sounded perfectly understandable to me! I'd turn to me friends and ask: "Why are they putting sub-titles on him?" and my buds would fall all over themselves laughing at me! I have to confess it was a while before I caught on.

I came to Ontario 47 years ago yet still if I get drunk or excited I lose my Ontario accent!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

Wild Bill said:


> I made no attempt to deny that English adopts new words. Considering that English has done far more of this than perhaps any other language on the planet would have made that a very hard point to defend.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think you're looking for the word 'ethnocentrism', but I would describe it instead as 'unilingual pride' (something you come across a lot in Canada).

Oh, I'm not totally disagreeing with your points, it just seems like you're sitting a bit on the fence on whether change is good or not (from my point of view, judgment calls like that shouldn't be made since change is inevitable). 

Speaking of dialects and what is appropriate or not, ponder this:

the 'Queen's English', or whatever you call standard/proper English, is a dialect of the upper-classes.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2007)

"I've always used ******* as a derogatory."

There's no other way TO use it......

If yer a *******, it's a BAD thing. Full stop.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*"Back to the Future!"*

This has been a lively thread, lasting for quite a few posts. It's wandered a bit from the original theme but that's what good discussion should do - spark more thoughts!

When a thread gets this long sometimes I like to go back and re-read it from the beginning, to get a better sense of continuity. I re-read the link to "God Hates Canada!"

Something jumped out at me from between the lines. If you ignore the religious rhetoric there's something quite familiar about the style! Lots of folks we meet (perhaps even in this thread!) have a similar style in expressing their beliefs!

It's called righteousness, which is often passed off as conviction. The difference is easy to spot. Conviction means you hold strongly to your beliefs and express them with passion. You might change or modify them but only if you're faced with a strong argument.

With righteousness there's more than passion or conviction. You absolutely believe you are correct and are not interested in any other views. What's more, you tend to be very snide and rude towards anyone who disagrees with you or even dares not to accept your "gospel" without question.

We've been very lucky here at guitarscanada.com We've managed to create an open forum that except for a couple of crankbags has stayed surprisingly civilized, especially when compared to most other boards. 

Just for shiggles, I tried out a discussion forum called "Canadian Latitude Forums". The political area seemed active, if a little one sided. I jumped in and in two days or so I just bailed. This board looks like an English High Tea conversation in comparison! There was little attempt at actual discussion or debate, merely everyone trying to "one-up" each other with insults and ad hominem attacks. Sometimes it seems like no one actually read what each other had said but simply labeled anyone in range as their "straw man" and ranted away.

I intend to poke around a bit more to see what I can see. There's something about today's culture and it's intolerance of "deniers" that seems much more shallow than what I remember as a kid during the 60's and 70's. I know nostalgia isn't what it used to be :smile: but it seems to be more than that. If you want to fix a problem you first have to understand it. We're drifted a long way from those hippy attitudes of "as long as you're not hurting anybody else it's ok, man!"

When I think I understand things better I'll start another thread to see if we can share some thoughts. Meanwhile, to quote the band "Strange Fruit" it's nice to see that at least on this board "the flame still burns". 

I've always believed that guitarists for the most part are more polite. Now drummers, that's another story!:smile:

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Michelle (Aug 21, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> ....
> 
> Just for shiggles, I tried out a discussion forum called "Canadian Latitude Forums". The political area seemed active, if a little one sided. I jumped in and in two days or so I just bailed. This board looks like an English High Tea conversation in comparison! ........


Yep, been there, (and CKA, Vive), I agree, GC more my cup of tea. 

Have a great weekend!


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

ClintonHammond said:


> "I've always used ******* as a derogatory."
> 
> There's no other way TO use it......
> 
> If yer a *******, it's a BAD thing. Full stop.



Unless you're Jeff Foxworthy and Larry the Cable Guy...then '*******' means a few million bucks in the bank.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2007)

Only because a lot of people are dumb enough to pay for anything.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

ClintonHammond said:


> Only because a lot of people are dumb enough to pay for anything.


Maybe. Sure, it doesn't take much talent to have people laugh at one's dumb jokes. But, it takes a little bit of genius to have them actually pay you for it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2007)

Wild Bill said:


> With righteousness there's more than passion or conviction. You absolutely believe you are correct and are not interested in any other views. What's more, you tend to be very snide and rude towards anyone who disagrees with you or even dares not to accept your "gospel" without question.


The three levels of Ignorance;

Those who don't have the capacity to learn.
Those who can't afford to learn.
And the most dangerous,
Those who refuse to learn.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2007)

" And the most dangerous,
Those who refuse to learn."
+10!!


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

laristotle said:


> The three levels of Ignorance;
> 
> Those who don't have the capacity to learn.
> Those who can't afford to learn.
> ...


Too true! I guess the fourth level would be:

Those who think they know it all, preach! And get rude and cranky in the face of disagreement...

These folks scare me most of all. If they think it was a good idea they would suggest cutting off their NEIGHBOUR'S arm! (Never their own - after all, they're much more important than others)

:sport-smiley-002:


----------

