• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Imus be an idiot . . .

bob_kark said:
I've never liked Don Imus. Never thought he was really that funny or thought provoking in any way. I also despise racism. It really drives me up the wall. I simply have no patience for it.

That being said, what Don Imus said was not racist.
Click to expand...

You are wrong.
 
Lonewulf said:
Uhhh...

Ooooo... kay?






So why the hell do you link dictionaries, again?

Methinks you do not know what "Appeal to Authority" actually means.
Click to expand...


Linking to a dictionary is as much of an appeal to authority as is linking to say a scientific study. Dictionaries define words. It's their job. When a definition becomes obsolete they change it. Frequently.
 
Tailgater said:
Proof a "ho" is usually considered a woman and "nappy" hair is considered black and unclean by most people:



You disappeared pretty quick after I posted this Dustin. No comment?
Click to expand...


I've already responded to your "urbandictionary" proofs. The "Urban dictionary" is unreliable. The definitions are put in mostly by teenagers. I could easily add a definition stating that "ho" could be a man. They would add it. And then what?

The reason I "disappeared" is due to the fact I have a life outside of this message board.
 
Lonewulf said:
Better than another War on Iraq thread, or another Israel rant.
Click to expand...

I agree. I find myself sitting for hours on end in front of FOX, munching on popcorn and other stuff like I'm at the movies. I'm eating all this up with fork and spoon. And I have been reading all the threads/posts...pages of them... about Imus here for the last hour or more, enjoying the discourse.

Carry on (until something else really comes along like another O.J. type murder or something).
 
Last edited:
Mephisto said:
Nice, but VERY obvious dodge. Let's see something, ANYTHING that proves what you're asserting? Let's see WHERE you get the notion that nappy-headed has been used as a slur against Caucasians.
Click to expand...

You'll find many pictures of white folk with nappy hair if you simply tried looking.

Even this one...

imus.jpg
 
Lonewulf said:
He was parroting black culture? Really? I was not under that impression.
Click to expand...

You must never listen to 50 cent, snoop dog, Eminem, or any other famous rappers.




Lonewulf said:
Who's "we"? I'm not firing anyone, MSNBC fired him. They could easily have chosen not to. It was all up to them; there was no force behind it.

Sure, there was some boycott that Al Sharpton came up with, but a boycott is only effective in one of two conditions:

1) There is enough in the boycott for the company to risk losing massive amounts of profit.

2) The boycott seems to be far more effective than it really is.

It seems to be 2, in this case. The company (and more specifically their investors) perceived a feint, took it as a direct and deadly attack, responded, and Don Imus got fired for it.

Though I agree with Randfan that emotions were overly charged in this situation, and Al Sharpton attempted to charge them even more. Regardless, if I put blame anywhere, it's on MSNBC and their investors, notably the latter. They chickened out and weren't willing to stand behind their man.

However, if the people that hired any of those people that you just mentioned decided to fire them, then I support their right to.
Click to expand...


Should Imus of lost his job simply for saying "Nappy headed hos"? Yes or No?
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
That's a dictionary edited by teenagers. How much weight do you really want to put into that?
Click to expand...

Evidence they are mostly teenagers?

The issue was if most people considered "ho" offensive to women. Out of 96 definitions, most were offensive to women. Thousands of people voted that this was so. Regardless of age, this is a large enough sample to prove that the average person considers "ho" offensive to women. If you added men, it would be last on the list. Last=a minority of people associating "ho" with men.

Take a gander at definition 101 of "Atheist.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Atheist&page=15

Or definition 89.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Atheist&page=13
Click to expand...

Definition 101 means that it was the 101st definition of what people think of atheists, which means not many people.

Which would be about where your "men are hos too" would rank.
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
I've already responded to your "urbandictionary" proofs. The "Urban dictionary" is unreliable. The definitions are put in mostly by teenagers. I could easily add a definition stating that "ho" could be a man. They would add it. And then what?
Click to expand...

So if 99% of teenagers think "ho" is associated with women, that would not reflect the rest of society?
 
Tailgater said:
Evidence they are mostly teenagers?
Click to expand...

As soon as you provide evidence it's reliable as a source.

Tailgater said:
The issue was if most people considered "ho" offensive to women. Out of 96 definitions, most were offensive to women. Thousands of people voted that this was so. Regardless of age, this is a large enough sample to prove that the average person considers "ho" offensive to women. If you added men, it would be last on the list. Last=a minority of people associating "ho" with men.
Click to expand...

Argument from popular opinion. Fallacy.

Tailgater said:
Definition 101 means that it was the 101st definition of what people think of atheists, which means not many people.

Which would be about where your "men are hos too" would rank.
Click to expand...

That site isn't a "poll". It's a site where people post "Urban" definitions of words.
 
Tailgater said:
-Ranks 5th.

The number one definition was associated with unclean african-american hair. You really think he would have said nappy if there were no blacks on the team?
Click to expand...

I don't see how this has anything to do with anything. The fact that one definition is #1 and another is #5 has absolutely nothing to do with their validity but more to do with how they appeal to the people voting for them.
 
Tailgater said:
I don't think so, but I'm also not opposed to a "defemation of character" lawsuit by the students.
Click to expand...
Based on what theory? Could it be reasonably assumed that Imus claimed that these women were sex workers and that a reasonable person would assume that he was right?

You'll have to help me out on this one.
 
Defamation is an injury to the reputation or character of someone resulting from the false statements or actions of another. Defamation is a false attack on your good name. Your good name is regarded as a proprietary interest, not a personal interest. Defamation is an improper and unlawful attack against your proprietary right to your good name, your reputation.
Click to expand...

In America there is a good deal of lattitude given for speech that is meant to be humorous. When Imus is serious he speaks in a serious tone. When he is joking he is jovial and laughing.

To prevail in a defamation suit you would have to demonstrate that a reasonable person would conclude that the girls were prostitutes based on Imus's statements.

You would also have to show harm. Where is the harm? These women were given an hour press confrence and have been lauded by just about everyone.

I don't see how you demonstrate either requirement.
 
Tailgater said:
So if 99% of teenagers think "ho" is associated with women, that would not reflect the rest of society?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what "the rest of society" thinks. The only thing that matters is how Imus used the word. Many of the definitions from that site consider "ho" to simply be a woman who is unfaithful or untrustworthy not a "prostitute.


Tailgater said:
I don't think so, but I'm also not opposed to a "defemation of character" lawsuit by the students.
Click to expand...


A "defemation(sic) of character" lawsuit would never fly for many of the reasons explained by me already concerning their actual nappy hair and the fact that "ho" doesn't necessarily mean a prostitute but someone untrustworthy which is of course subjective. Moreover, damages must be demonstrated. "Hurt feelings" wouldn't fit that criteria.
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
As soon as you provide evidence it's reliable as a source.



Argument from popular opinion. Fallacy.



That site isn't a "poll". It's a site where people post "Urban" definitions of words.
Click to expand...

The arguement is if the term is popular opinion. That fallacy does not apply here. That site is a sampling of popular opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom