Palin Goes Rogue on Vegans

[mhaze]

Since ignoring or going contrary to political correctness is so much fun, why not, instead of bending over backwards to not insult the rabbits and their rabbit food, why not continue to talk about the joys of eating roasted slabs of flesh?

It is sooooo yummy. Especially with crushed peppercorns and a couple of baby carrots with the leaves still on.

...Why do people hate vegetarians?

It's okay with me, really. They can have the two cute little baby carrots with the leaves still on. And I'll keep the 16 ounce ribeye.

Well.

Maybe I'll keep one of the carrots.

 

[Cynic]

When have libs allowed the use of the word "retardation" outside of ridiculing their political foes? The only acceptable phrases, regardless of any distinctions, are cognitive disabilities, mentally challenged, learning disabilities, or special education.

I tend to hang out in scientific circles, where retardation is simply regarded as accurate under the circumstances in which it is used. Scientists, also a generally better educated lot, tend more often to be more liberal than their anti-science counterparts.

For a supposedly "better educated lot," many of them are suckers for unbearablebobness.typepad.com generated quotes falsely attributed to Palin. You know, the very same quote that you and Matt Damon believed to be true.

You seem think correct attribution and wording of a quote is required to agree with the sentiment behind it. Damon questioned the idea of voting for a book banning creationist. So do I.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I tend to hang out in scientific circles, where retardation is simply regarded as accurate under the circumstances in which it is used. Scientists, also a generally better educated lot, tend more often to be more liberal than their anti-science counterparts.

This may not be particularly relevant to the conversation, but when I worked as an interpreter for the Deaf, I frequently ran into people who felt that "Deaf" or "deaf" was somehow rude and insulting whereas "hearing impaired" was not.

To the older ASL Deaf Community, it's pretty much just the opposite. For them, "deaf" and "hearing" are two separate categories, and to call a "deaf" person "hearing impaired" makes as much sense as calling a black person "white-impaired".

OTOH, I've met plenty of deaf people who don't mind if they're referred to by either term. (Though pretty much all of them find "deaf and dumb" or "deaf-mute" to be pretty objectionable, since deafness is not the same as muteness, even for those who never speak--and of course there is the ambiguity of the term "dumb".)

Again, this isn't terribly relevant to this conversation except to make the broad point that what is meant to be polite might not always be perceived that way by everyone concerned.

 

[Furcifer]

I suggest we stop this irrelevant line of arguing about Palin and get back to the important task of deciding if we want to have sex with her or not.

I'd do her here or on campaign
I'd do her there beside McCain

I'd do her good out on a boat.
I'd do her dirty in a moat.

Over there
and under that,
I'd do her in a hunting hat.

I'd do her happy with delight.
I'd do her sad on 'lection night.

I do her once with vegan
I'd do her twice at hunting season

Over there
and under that,
I'd do that sexy milfy bat.

 

[cwalner]

As a generally better educated lot, the "libs" would make the distinction based on the actual differences between retardation and having a learning disability. I don't think Palin in either -- I think she's willfully ignorant, which is or course is the worst kind and most deserving of derision.

Bolded part is what bugs me the most about her too. I do not like that in the 2008 campaign, she seemed to play up her ignorance as one of her positive attributes. Of course she didn't use the term ignorant, but instead used terms like folksy and common and couched it in terms of populism vs elitism.

I kind of like it if my leaders think they know better then me how to run this country. Its pretty much one of the traits that qualifies them to lead. And for those who don't think that conservatives can be just as 'elitist' think on how many times GWB dismissed his low approval ratings, claiming that history will judge his legacy. In short he was stating that he knew better than the rest of us how to run the country. While I did have many issues with Bush, this attitude was not one of them.

 

[cwalner]

I'd do her here or on campaign
I'd do her there beside McCain

I'd do her good out on a boat.
I'd do her dirty in a moat.

Over there
and under that,
I'd do her in a hunting hat.

I'd do her happy with delight.
I'd do her sad on 'lection night.

I do her once with vegan
I'd do her twice at hunting season

Over there
and under that,
I'd do that sexy milfy bat.

I will not do her on a train
I will not do her in the rain

I would not do her on a boat
I would not do her with a goat

I will not do her, Sam I am
Sarah Palin, I will not slam

 

[Sporanox]

Bolded part is what bugs me the most about her too. I do not like that in the 2008 campaign, she seemed to play up her ignorance as one of her positive attributes. Of course she didn't use the term ignorant, but instead used terms like folksy and common and couched it in terms of populism vs elitism.

Ignorance of what, exactly?

 

[Cicero]

I tend to hang out in scientific circles, where retardation is simply regarded as accurate under the circumstances in which it is used. Scientists, also a generally better educated lot, tend more often to be more liberal than their anti-science counterparts.

How could you possibly conclude that liberal scientists are immune from spouting political correctness and are not influenced by it?

New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade succumbs to PC in his book "Before the Dawn."

"Despite the evidence, since World War II many archeologists and anthropologists have been promoting the myth of the peaceful savage. Otzi was initially described as a shepherd, though found with his body were a bow, a dagger and an axe. Prof. Keeley told Mr. Wade that a grant application he'd made to study a Neolithic ditch and palisade was rejected until he changed his description of the structure from "fortification" to "enclosure."


"Geneticists have identified five races — Africans, Caucasians, Asians, Pacific Islanders and Native Americans — based on the continents on which each race developed. Different racial groups have different susceptibilities to disease." Nicholas Wade

Wade seems to be at odds with Robert S. Schwartz, M.D

"Race is a social construct, not a scientific classification." Robert S. Schwartz, M.D, deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine

You seem think correct attribution and wording of a quote is required to agree with the sentiment behind it. Damon questioned the idea of voting for a book banning creationist. So do I.

What? Looks like we have to revisit the sentiments that Damon said described Palin and that you endorsed.


"I need to know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago, that's an important...I want to know that. I really do. Because she's going to have the nuclear codes. I want to know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago. Or if she banned books or tried to ban books. We can't have that." M.D.

Since Palin never said anything remotely like this, or banned any books, how do you figure you are using science, never mind common sense, to gage Palin's actual beliefs and deeds? These absurd charges about Palin were debunked last year, but you still believe them. Even if it is possible that Matt Damon may have eventually figured out that what he said was ******** (if we give him the beneift of the doubt), you still do believe the information that was completely fabricated by some blogger. Come on.

 

[Phrost]

Vegetarians are cool; vegans are just nifty.

People who are smugly self-righteous about what they eat should be held down and force-fed Lutherburgers and bacon milkshakes.

 

[mhaze]

How could you possibly conclude that liberal scientists are immune from spouting political correctness and are not influenced by it?

.......
Since Palin never said anything remotely like this, or banned any books, how do you figure you are using science, never mind common sense, to gage Palin's actual beliefs and deeds? These absurd charges about Palin were debunked last year, but you still believe them. Even if it is possible that Matt Damon may have eventually figured out that what he said was ******** (if we give him the beneift of the doubt), you still do believe the information that was completely fabricated by some blogger. Come on.

Ever notice how all the "smart people" are said to be liberal Democrats? They were talking up about "how smart Al Gore was" when he was running for Prez. Funniest thing, we hear him talk now and he sure seems dumb.

And by the way, why do you criticize the poster, who claims to be in the Elite, well informed, educated inner sanctum, but shows in his own post his ignorance, inability to think clearly, and prejudice? I rather like it.

And I'll keep that last baby carrot on the plate. Vegans can go pull some grass out of the yard and munch on it.

 

[Cynic]

How could you possibly conclude that liberal scientists are immune from spouting political correctness and are not influenced by it?

How could you possibly conclude that I've concluded this?

 

[gtc]

As a generally better educated lot, the "libs" would make the distinction based on the actual differences between retardation and having a learning disability. I don't think Palin in either -- I think she's willfully ignorant, which is or course is the worst kind and most deserving of derision.

Given Ausmerican's contribution to this thread, I think you need to revise your blanket assertion.

 

[Cynic]

Given Ausmerican's contribution to this thread, I think you need to revise your blanket assertion.

Everyone should stop making -- and seeing in every post that catches their attention -- blanket assertions.

 

[cwalner]

Vegetarians are cool; vegans are just nifty.

People who are smugly self-righteous about what they eat should be held down and force-fed Lutherburgers and bacon milkshakes.

I was vegetarian for about 2 years during college because I was convinced that it was a healthier lifestyle (I got over it), nothing to do with ethics. Friends who knew of my vegitarianism (but not the reasons for it) at the time got confused when they saw me wearing my favorite leather jacket.

Because I was also (and still am) a sarcistic schmuck, my response was a simple 'Cows are meant to be worn, not eaten'

Oh, and as my previous posts show, I do enjoy a good steak, but a bacon milkshake just sounds absolutely disgusting.

 

[gtc]

Everyone should stop making -- and seeing in every post that catches their attention -- blanket assertions.

You made a blanket assertion and you were wrong. It was particularly silly of you as you made your blanket assertion after the evidence that your assertion was wrong had already been posted.

 

[Cynic]

You made a blanket assertion and you were wrong. It was particularly silly of you as you made your blanket assertion after the evidence that your assertion was wrong had already been posted.

We're talking about averages here. To read a statement like that and presume that it necessarily refers to each and every member of the class specified is, well, I'd elaborate on what it impies about the reader but there are forum rules against that, but it's not good.

 

[cwalner]

Ignorance of what, exactly?

For starters, Science, Politics, and Foreign Relations.

Science. I will state that anybody who adheres to the brand of religion that she does is willfully ignorant of science. The mindset of those more extreme religions is that they do not want to learn about science because they see it as a challenge to thier faith. She has publicly declared her faith as in line with that and so has declered herself as proudly and willfully ignorant of science.

Politics. Her numerous gaffes during the campaign show a lack of knowledge of political reality on a national stage. To win on the national stage, you have to have a much wider appeal than just your base. To succesfully govern once elected, you have to be able to work with the opposition. Her polarizing political stances make it more difficult to get elected, and will make it impossible for her to effectively govern if she does manage to win an election.

Foreign Relations. This can be summed up with her claim that she knows about Russia becasue she lives in the state geographically closest to Russia. This is clearly a statement from ignorance about what even her own views on foreign policy are. At the time she was asked this question, she clearly had not bothered to form any ideas regarding foreign policy (she didn't even bother to parrot those of McCain). This level of ignorance regarding foreign policy may be ok for you and me (we do not have to make any decisions regarding it) but is completely unacceptable for a VP candidate. Even if she didn't have her own opinion, she could have at least parroted the campaign or party line. Her comments showed she didn't even bother to learn what those were.

In short, if she wants to portray herself as a folksy down-to-earth person who is just like you or me, that is fine. But neither you nor I are remotely qualified to be VP of this country and if she is just like you and me, then she is not qualified either.

 

[gtc]

We're talking about averages here.

Nice try.

 

[Cynic]

Nice try.

*sigh* Whatever dude. You believe what you want -- you're going to anyway.

 

[Sporanox]

Science. I will state that anybody who adheres to the brand of religion that she does is willfully ignorant of science. The mindset of those more extreme religions is that they do not want to learn about science because they see it as a challenge to thier faith. She has publicly declared her faith as in line with that and so has declered herself as proudly and willfully ignorant of science.

I would submit that she's no more ignorant of science on the hot-button topics than your average pol. Even the ones who endorse "correct" (depending on your viewpoint) positions aren't very knowledgeable about the actual science. They just stuck to the right side.

Besides AGW (which is not a closed case) and the role of evolution in Christianity (which ideally should not enter into the public sphere at all), I don't see her as willfully ignorant of or damaging towards science.

Politics. Her numerous gaffes during the campaign show a lack of knowledge of political reality on a national stage. To win on the national stage, you have to have a much wider appeal than just your base. To succesfully govern once elected, you have to be able to work with the opposition. Her polarizing political stances make it more difficult to get elected, and will make it impossible for her to effectively govern if she does manage to win an election.

To a certain extent, her speaking problems were a function of the leash McCain's handlers kept on her. I used to believe otherwise, but seeing her speak and write after the campaign has changed my mind. Nevertheless, I agree with you somewhat. She's getting better, though.

Foreign Relations. This can be summed up with her claim that she knows about Russia becasue she lives in the state geographically closest to Russia.

Yes, based on her arguments during the campaign, I agree. Again, though, I expect she will correct her deficiencies sooner or later.

Finally, just because she was unprepared in foreign relations to be VP in 2008 doesn't mean she was willfully ignorant or that she played up that ignorance. Now, I could be wrong - I don't remember any particular nuggets that issued from Palin's mouth during the election - but I don't remember her playing up anti-elitism unless it was about her vs. the Beltway establishment.