Dan has reverted to arguing about how language was used, he pointed out I mis-spoke because I had two "r's" in Tories so I misquoted and it seemed to make my statement meaningless. he lost the argument long ago, can't accept it and has reverted to his tactic of arguing grammar.

My whole point is about how language is used. It is called context. Perhaps your English teachers didn't educate you properly, and perhaps I am banging my head against a wall to try and give you a glimmer, but I am trying.

My picking up on your misspelling and inability to read a date properly were in a footnote, and not the central point of that post. Neither are issues of grammar.

Ah, screw it. You guys win. There's just no way I can compete with all the stupid...

PCHiway wrote:And the obtuseness just keeps on coming...

danivon wrote:Ok. Here's the question. Do you believe that it is fine for politicians to use such rhetoric?

Forget which 'side' they are on for a moment, and consider the question. If your answer is yes, I invite you to please take a good hard look at your own self for a moment.

This is classic Danivon. Without saying so explicitly you imply that anyone who won't put a limit on rhetoric should do some soul-searching.

Yes. Do you yourself not put limits on what you say in public? Would you put limits on what you say if you sought office?

Or would you stand up naked and spew a load of expletives? Would you call for the death of your opponents? Would you lie about their intentions?

We all have limits, PCH. And we all have moral scruples that we like to uphold.

Dan, you seem to think that you should get a pass for what you imply but don't state in so many words. Well...just as you have the right to impugn...so too do I have the right to call foul.

And you seem to think that Palin and Kelly have the right to imply violence against Giffords. I exercised my right to call foul.

There we go again, there is zero "implied violence" on the part of either person, only manufactured implication by those against those people. A gun sight on a targeted district in no way implies violence, it implies "X marks the spot, this is an area we want to win" no matter how many times you insist violence had been intended, it doesn't change the facts that there was no ill will in the least. The other case was a fund raiser at a gun club, again no violence suggested or even hinted at. Where were the complaints BEFORE the shooting? If this were even in the least bit a violent message, where was the outrage? That answer is there was none because there was no issue, a liberal zealot sought to manufacture such links (links proven false, but do they stop?)

danivon wrote:Perhaps your English teachers didn't educate you properly, and perhaps I am banging my head against a wall to try and give you a glimmer, but I am trying.

You appear to share Mr. Loughner's peculiar interest in grammar, Dan, and I'm afraid that your logic and his are about equally sensible. Perhaps, in your case, strict limits on gun access are a good idea. We wouldn't want to discover that you and Mr. Loughner have even more in common, would we?

GMTom wrote:A gun sight on a targeted district in no way implies violence, it implies "X marks the spot, this is an area we want to win"

Actually, a simple "x" would be the best way to imply "X marks the spot." That's what you always see on pirate treasure maps - never a gun sight, and pirates were really into guns.

Seriously, I know a little bit about cartography. Marking locations on a map with symbols other than the most simple clear ones is done so that the symbols will themselves not just note a location but also impart some info. And if you look at sets of non-military cartographic symbols you are extremely unlikely to find anything like these:



The map could have employed dots, arrows, diamonds, x's... nearly anything to indicate the location of those districts. In cartography, the general guideline is to stay as simple as possible - departures like the one above are part of an effort to impart a tone, theme, aesthetic, or similar "feeling" to a map.

Now I doubt Sarah made the map. And I doubt that whoever did was consciously suggesting that the "prescription" should include the use of firearms. I would guess that the selection of these gun sight symbols was based on a desire to communicate something about urgency and to tie the "Take Back the 20" campaign in with Palin's known affinity for hunting. Recreational hunting, to a devotee, isn't (I guess) about violence, but rather about stalking and tactics and the competition between hunter and hunted. So giving Palin and her minions the benefit of every doubt I'd have to say that the use of those symbols wasn't intended to communicate anything about the use of firearms against the Dems who hold the 20 seats. But I think you'd have to admit that it was part of an effort (perhaps subconscious) to communicate more than a simple "x" would.

Here's another version:

I had posted a link to the map earlier myself. The targets are just that, TARGETS, targeted districts. If they had a target over the peoples faces themselves, that would be a whole different story. I admit it seems a bit militaristic and not my cup of tea, but look at her demographics and gun sight targets fit quite well. To suggest any sort of call to assassinate these politicians is absolutely absurd, yet here we are, any chance to slam Palin and liberals will gladly do so, even if they need to manufacture such links to this shooting.

It has a definite militaristic look to it, I grant you that. But more of a call to a soldier than a call to a hit man. They diagnosed the problem, time to take back these targeted districts. Again, I am no fan of the map just as I am no fan of Palin and I am critical of much of what she says and does, but to even suggest she had anything to do with the shooting is plain wrong, it's been proven wrong but does it stop the Palin bashers? look at this thread, even even minded MX jumps into the fray suggesting something else, the start of this topic attempted to link her to the shootings, trying to criticize her (in this thread) only gives those unsubstantiated claims and outright lies some sort of credence.

What's really funny is that the same crowd that now defends violent imagery in political debates went completly bonkers about nipplegate.
Just an observation.
The rest of the debate just turned into the usual party bickering.

Faxmonkey wrote:What's really funny is that the same crowd that now defends violent imagery in political debates went completly bonkers about nipplegate.
Just an observation.
.

No, it's not "just an observation." It is a vapid observation. No one has "defended" violent imagery in political debates. We have challenged the alleged link between such metaphors (and that's what those gunsights are--the "targeting of a district" is not a code for "carpet-bombing" it) and actual violence. We have pointed out that liberals/Democrats use similar or worse images.

Your "observation" is as pertinent to this debate as orange sherbet. Actually, if mixed with some vanilla ice cream, the sherbet would be more, um, on target.

danivon wrote:Ah, screw it. You guys win. There's just no way I can compete with all the stupid...

Oh, don't sell yourself short! You have proven yourself to be either intentionally thick-headed, disingenuous, or incapable of grasping the ridiculousness of your position. So, sure, you can compete! In fact, you are the prime candidate.

Doctor, I could give it very good try, but I am a mere amateur player of the game, a debutant. I can't keep up with those who are born naturals.

At least Min X gets it. Is he being ridiculous?

Machiavelli wrote:You appear to share Mr. Loughner's peculiar interest in grammar, Dan, and I'm afraid that your logic and his are about equally sensible. Perhaps, in your case, strict limits on gun access are a good idea. We wouldn't want to discover that you and Mr. Loughner have even more in common, would we?

An interest in grammar is not unusual, well, perhaps not amongst the educated. I am not trying to suggest that the government is 'imposing' a grammar through thought control, however, I'm pointing out that Tom was incorrect to say I'd spotted grammatical errors. I hadn't. In addition to the massive cognitive error, there was a spelling problem and the inability to read a date. None of those are grammatical errors. Those three alone in one snidey little post are enough to be getting along with...

The post was not "snidey", we don't use that word over here. It was meant to be somewhat humorous, I was pointing out that gun referenced language is used there as it is here, then I posted a picture with a "Torrie" (with a gun no less) that was pretty funny you gotta admit. To say you didn't spot grammatical errors and go on to point out the word Torie was mis-spelled??? Uh, that's spotting a grammar error pal.

there is zero "implied violence" on the part of either person

Really? You are going to argue that there is zero implied violence in using a gun sight to target the opposition? What I would see as implied there is violence. There is an association of the gun sights with guns, and (for me anyhow) there is an association between guns and violent death (i.e. being shot). Now, this may be because I live in a culture where we do not have guns (I have seen real guns a handful of times, and may have touched one once or twice at things like hiring fairs for the army, and have never fired one), and my knowledge of guns comes from movies and tv (where guns always! imply violence, even if the person with the gun is the protecter).

Is there no such link in American culture? You gun control people are always comparing guns to cars, do you really see no difference between the two objects?

To say you didn't spot grammatical errors and go on to point out the word Torie was mis-spelled??? Uh, that's spotting a grammar error pal.

Actually, to play the grammer-nazi for a moment, that is a spelling error.

GMTom wrote:The post was not "snidey", we don't use that word over here.

So how do you know what it means?

Humour is judged by the audience, not the teller. Laughing at your own jokes isn't a sign that they are funny. I just thought it was a crass way to get a picture of a scantily clad lady into your post. Not my cup of tea, though, her face looks a little masculine. Grammar and spelling are two different things, also. At least they were when I was learning English.

But the main issue I had with that post is that you are not comparing like with like. As Min X, and now Diemo, point out, there is a difference between using the word 'target', and using a target symbol that is a gunsight, or using it while promoting an event at which you get to fire an M-16. It is called context.