Jump to content

He's OFFENDED Because We Won't Run???


aramike
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:


Originally posted by TRD:

On its own, I cant see anything offensive about it. Thats why I think it was just part of a bigger problem with him being a muslim, and the bad name the religion has been given, especially over the last month.


With actions like that, he isn't helping to give his religion any better of a name. I don't agree with typing relgions, however, I do realize the nature of it all and he's not helping the perception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I see that many of you are willing to impute noble intentions onto this man's actions, but his history, to me, makes him look like an agitator.

I see from this article (and a radio report I heard yesterday) that many feel that he sued his way onto the fire department on claims of racial discrimination. Also, he is facing a weapons charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

I see that many of you are willing to impute noble intentions onto this man's actions, but his history, to me, makes him look like an agitator.

I see from
this article
(and a radio report I heard yesterday) that many feel that he sued his way onto the fire department on claims of racial discrimination. Also, he is facing a weapons charge.


Like I said, that's the most typical liberal tactic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, that would piss me off if I worked there and that dude tore down the poster. THEN gets behind a lawyer like a pussy, why doesn't he have the balls to confront the other firefighters and explain what he doesn't like about it. Sorry I just hate people who run to lawyers over something like a poster. Maybe he want monatery compensation?

If he is causing so many problems he won't be a good firefighter to work with.

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: mO ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yep that's right, he's completely justified in removing the poster. it's his right in this country to act any way he pleases. however, if one is unable to stand with their country during these times, then the person needs to seriously consider finding a new home nation.

second, folks, we are not at war with 'islam'. we are at war with terrorists. turn off your tv. think about what's happened. stop repeating what you're hearing on terrorist tv or from liberal media.

otherwise, i'll have to think of you as no better than the uneducated masses that are easily swayed by those claiming that America is attacking islam. anyone with an education and lacking an axe to grind knows that this has been a LONG time coming.

the u.n. (united nincompoops) has been the #1 reason this war on ter's is so long in coming. personally, i'd be more than happy if the world were to become really big again. hard to cross boarders; restrictive customs (legal, not cultural) etc. superpowers that had the balls to be superpowers and do what's necessary. and an end to this one world government/ globalization movement crap.

i may be an earthling and a human, but as far as i'm concerned, i am an American. being American is better than belonging to ANY other nation in the world. i've been there, and it's okay to visit. but i know that America IS better. it always has been, and always will be. the moment i feel otherwise will be the momemnt i die or leave.

anyone in America that feels otherwise needs to heed the call, much like american germans in WWII, and return to where they think is better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


yep that's right, he's completely justified in removing the poster. it's his right in this country to act any way he pleases.

I disagree. That's like saying that I have a right to remove a photograph of a coworkers children, just because I want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

it's his right in this country to act any way he pleases.

Nope, it's his right to do and say anything he want's that doesn't interfere with someone else's rights to do and say anything they want.

Like a supreme court justice put it "my right to move my fist is limited by the proximity of your chin."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The person in question is an American.

These colors don't run implies that we won't back down from a threat. If THESE was emphasized, perhaps I could see your point, but that statement applies to every instance it was used as meaning what I described.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

The person in question is an American.

An American of Muslim descent.

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

These colors don't run implies that we won't back down from a threat. If THESE was emphasized, perhaps I could see your point, but that statement applies to every instance it was used as meaning what I described.

The thing about implications and inferences is that they vary by individuals. The only way, "These colors don't run." could unequivically mean "We won't back down from a threat" is if it actually said, "We won't back down from a threat."

One of the reasons the "These colors don't run." poster/t-shirt has been so popular is because of the double meaning, especially in light of how the al-Queda and Taliban are in hiding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by MrkGrismer:

Counterpoint: The phrase, "These colors do not run." implies that whatever entity the US is currently at war with has a penchance for running. In otherwords, it can be considered calling 'them' cowards.

Most likely why the person was offended.

Just a thought.


Another counter-point: The phrase "these colors don't run" implies nothing of the short. It ONLY says that the US does not run. How on EARTH does that mean the other side runs?

In any case, the point is moot. At what point does America have to actually respect its blood enemies? Talk about ridiculous...

quote:


An American of Muslim descent.

You've just defaulted your own argument. If "These colors don't run" means our enemies do, indeed run, that would mean terrorists run. Terrorists are our enemies, not muslims. Therefore, by your argument, the only way this person should be offended is if he was a terrorist, or a sympathizer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Another counter-point: The phrase "these colors don't run" implies nothing of the short. It ONLY says that the US does not run. How on EARTH does that mean the other side runs?

No, it ONLY says "These colors do not run." A statement which really only makes logical sense when you are talking about whether the flag is color-fast or not. If you infer that it means the US doesn't back down from a fight then it would seem hypocritical of you to deny that another person cannot infer that it accuses others of running.

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

In any case, the point is moot. At what point does America have to actually respect its blood enemies? Talk about ridiculous...

Some might say that America should respect all life, blah, blah, blah. Personally I'm all for large numbers of Sniper's armed with Barret Light 50s.

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

You've just defaulted your own argument. If "These colors don't run" means our enemies do, indeed run, that would mean terrorists run. Terrorists are our enemies, not muslims. Therefore, by your argument, the only way this person should be offended is if he was a terrorist, or a sympathizer.

Note that I didn't state 'enemies'. Note that I said, "whatever entity the US is currently at war with".

Personally I know that means the terrorists and their supporters, but it is increasingly apparent that the Muslim world is not so sure.

I'm not trying to defend this guy or anything, I think what he did was wrong -- just as wrong as anyone else desecrating a piece of property. The only reason I posted my counter-point was because it hadn't been mentioned. Despite some people inquiring as to HOW somebody could be offended by the poster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


No, it ONLY says "These colors do not run." A statement which really only makes logical sense when you are talking about whether the flag is color-fast or not. If you infer that it means the US doesn't back down from a fight then it would seem hypocritical of you to deny that another person cannot infer that it accuses others of running.

Absolutely absurd. Your adding an implication to an IMPLICATION! Whoa, it's deep in here.

quote:


Some might say that America should respect all life, blah, blah, blah. Personally I'm all for large numbers of Sniper's armed with Barret Light 50s.

I'm with you on that.

quote:


Note that I didn't state 'enemies'. Note that I said, "whatever entity the US is currently at war with".

Which most of us call "enemies"...

quote:


Personally I know that means the terrorists and their supporters, but it is increasingly apparent that the Muslim world is not so sure.

Doesn't matter. The man is an American. Obviously we haven't declared war on ourselves.

quote:


I'm not trying to defend this guy or anything, I think what he did was wrong -- just as wrong as anyone else desecrating a piece of property. The only reason I posted my counter-point was because it hadn't been mentioned. Despite some people inquiring as to HOW somebody could be offended by the poster.

Hehe, I still think your point is wrong. Especially that part where you have the guy implying something from something implied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

Not to be nitpicky or anything, but isn't

The same as enemies?


Partly semantics. The US is currently at war with terrorism (and drugs, but let's not go there, those darn drugs are veteran fighters, ya know). However, bin Laden and other extremists have declared 'holy war' on the US, so they are at war with us. There is also a perception in the Muslim world that the US is at war with Islam. So Muslims and Islam are not 'enemies' of the US (since the US does not see them as such), yet some Muslims perceive the US as being at war with Muslims and Islam in general.

Perception is probably one of the biggest problems in this conflict right now, and perception is a very difficult thing to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the perspective, can't say that the afgan civie on the ground with bombs dropping around him is worried about the liberation of himself as much as staying alive.

Sadly it's something that has to be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Absolutely absurd. Your adding an implication to an IMPLICATION! Whoa, it's deep in here.

Howso? The statement "These colors do not run" can mean a variety of things. But literally it can only really mean that the colors cannot, or will not, run for some reason. Since colors cannot logically run in the sense of fleeing, the statement must be referring to the color-fastness of the flag.

However, I don't think anyone here thinks the poster is an advertisment for the bleach-resistance of the American flag the implied meaning of the statement is what is being pushed. Since the implied statement is that the US doesn't run (assumedly, from a just fight, and not just any fight) then the only reason such a statement would have a reason to be made is if there was the possibility of a perception in the other direction (that the US DOES run). Since the creator of the poster saw a need to advertise that the US does NOT run, that creator must believe that there is a perception that the victims of attacks would have a tendancy to run.

So it is certainly NOT absurd that a Muslim, regardless of citizenship, who has the perception that the US is at war with Muslim society (incorrect perception or not) might infer that "These Colors Do Not Run" on the poster is calling the Muslim world cowards. Especially if that Muslim secretly holds the opinion that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are running from the fight, and hiding.

In other words, he may have been offended because he was ashamed of being associated with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Howso? The statement "These colors do not run" can mean a variety of things. But literally it can only really mean that the colors cannot, or will not, run for some reason. Since colors cannot logically run in the sense of fleeing, the statement must be referring to the color-fastness of the flag.

Exactly. That is the obvious implication. Now, once THAT is implied, all implications coming from that meaning are derivitive of an implication. Semantics...

Sometimes deciphering an implication is necessary. In this case, there is one that is obvious and necessary. Anything beyond that is merely stretching it. What you're suggesting would be the same thing as me saying that the poster implied, to ME, that my green shirt does indeed run.

Pretty much anyone would write that off as ludicrous sensitivity.

quote:


However, I don't think anyone here thinks the poster is an advertisment for the bleach-resistance of the American flag the implied meaning of the statement is what is being pushed. Since the implied statement is that the US doesn't run (assumedly, from a just fight, and not just any fight) then the only reason such a statement would have a reason to be made is if there was the possibility of a perception in the other direction (that the US DOES run). Since the creator of the poster saw a need to advertise that the US does NOT run, that creator must believe that there is a perception that the victims of attacks would have a tendancy to run.

Uhm, no. Why would the creator have to assume the exact opposite of the OTHER party? That, again, is absurd.

When making a postive statement about oneself, it only applies to oneself. Like, if I say that *I* don't run, does that mean or imply that YOU DO? Hardly. That simply means that I could run but I do not.

quote:


So it is certainly NOT absurd that a Muslim, regardless of citizenship, who has the perception that the US is at war with Muslim society (incorrect perception or not) might infer that "These Colors Do Not Run" on the poster is calling the Muslim world cowards. Especially if that Muslim secretly holds the opinion that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are running from the fight, and hiding.

STILL absurd. Stretching something that much would be the same as me calling you a terrorist sympathizer simply because of that statement. That would ALSO be absurd.

When I say I don't run, that does not mean that my ADVERSARY runs. When a nation says it, that HARDLY means that ITS adversary runs. It only means that its adversary won't MAKE US RUN.

If it isn't absurd that he assumes that, then it certainly isn't absurd for me to feel that this gentlemen is a terrorist himself.

Still, saying that something doesn't run is NOT, in ANY WAY, saying that something else IS running. That whole premise is ridiculous.

quote:


In other words, he may have been offended because he was ashamed of being associated with them.

Doubtful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

When making a postive statement about oneself, it only applies to oneself. Like, if I say that *I* don't run, does that mean or imply that YOU DO? Hardly. That simply means that I could run but I do not.

Why would you make the statement? There is certainly no rational reason to make the statement "*I* don't run" unless there was a reason for you to think the person(s) you are making that statement to would have reason to believe that you do, infact, run.

If there was no chance that you could be perceived as a person who runs, then there is no rational reason to state the obvious.

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Still, saying that something doesn't run is NOT, in ANY WAY, saying that something else IS running. That whole premise is ridiculous.

So me saying, "I don't judge opinions that differ from my own as ridiculous." has no impact on you then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Why would you make the statement? There is certainly no rational reason to make the statement "*I* don't run" unless there was a reason for you to think the person(s) you are making that statement to would have reason to believe that you do, infact, run.

BINGO! The terrorists believe that their acts will make us "run" from our activities that they dislike. We're simply saying that we do not.

Still, that in NO WAY implies that anyone else runs.

quote:


If there was no chance that you could be perceived as a person who runs, then there is no rational reason to state the obvious.

Yep. Still doesn't infer that someone else does.

quote:


So me saying, "I don't judge opinions that differ from my own as ridiculous." has no impact on you then.

Touche'

But I don't consider that an "opinion". You're trying to judge the motivations of another individual. There are NO indications of what you said. Furthermore, what your conclusions are don't actually make any sense.

Would be just like me saying that my car was the actual reason the attack occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

But I don't consider that an "opinion". You're trying to judge the motivations of another individual. There are NO indications of what you said. Furthermore, what your conclusions are don't actually make any sense.

Sorry, I have WAY too many female friends, those type of conclusions make sense to them... (and apparently they may have been a bad influence on me)

I'm not trying to judge the motivations of another individual, all I am doing is offering a possible motivation.

The article said he took the poster down because he was offended, so there must have been a reason he was offended. I've had women tell me that they were offended by being told they were attractive by a male friend, because they resented their friend thinking of them as a sex object. So, no, people don't always make a lot of sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People do not have an explicit "right" to not be offended. (My reasoning on why it doesn't matter what motivated him to do it.)

Why don't they just charge him with theft? Vandalism? Giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by MrkGrismer:

Sorry, I have WAY too many female friends, those type of conclusions make sense to them... (and apparently they may have been a bad influence on me)

I'm not trying to judge the motivations of another individual, all I am doing is offering a possible motivation.

The article said he took the poster down because he was offended, so there must have been a reason he was offended. I've had women tell me that they were offended by being told they were attractive by a male friend, because they resented their friend thinking of them as a sex object. So, no, people don't always make a lot of sense.


Heh, a lot of bizarre things make sense to women.

But like Silk said, being offended doesn't give anyone the right to do ANYTHING. For instance, if I was wearing a Packers shirt and some guy with a Bears shirt took offense, he wouldn't have the right to tear my shirt off (and, if he did that, I would exercise my non-right to kick the crap out of him).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

But like Silk said, being offended doesn't give anyone the right to do ANYTHING.

I fully agree. If he was offended the only reasonable recourse he really had was to tell his co-workers that the poster offended him, and explain why. That, or keep it to himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...