Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 17:52:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2015 18:54:56 GMT -5
it is. and unfortunately, the same first amendment that allows me to say that Obama's drone policy is immoral protects those assholes.
if the question devolves to denial of service in this case, then the customer would have to show that he is part of a protected class. I very much doubt that is the case, but if he wants to find out by pursuing it in the courts, that is absolutely his right.
While I will agree with you that it (the First Amendment) does protect them... to the consternation of Virgil and other deniers of reason and logic, it (the First Amendment) doesn't require others to write their hate for them, at their demand/request. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,163
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 24, 2015 20:33:35 GMT -5
I'm not going to delete your post. Zealousness and conservatism are admirable qualities as far as I'm concerned. Your assessment about which side of the argument is devoid of sound reasoning is totally wrong. We'll have to settle on an irreconcilable difference of opinion, but you can rest assured that the litany of hairs split and excuses contrived in this thread have soundly convinced me I'm on the right side of it. Having said this, imagine how you'd feel if, in response to your no-holds-barred critique of a conservative poster's exceptionally banal arguments, I made it known to you how deeply disappointed I was by your exhibiting such liberal zeal at the expense of truth and reason. ... I'm certain you can deduce where I'm going with this. I'm curious... which thread is the bolded in reference to? Certainly not this one, because tallguy is pretty "spot on" (as the Brits might say) in this thread... It's not literal. It's a continuation of the, "Imagine if...." which leads off the sentence. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,163
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 24, 2015 21:21:30 GMT -5
(I'll put this in a separate post so it is easier to delete.)
Virgil, you are becoming almost Paul-like in both your zeal to espouse a conservative viewpoint and your willingness to suspend both truth and reason in order to do so. I can't tell you how disappointing that is. I'm not going to delete your post. Zealousness and conservatism are admirable qualities as far as I'm concerned. Your assessment about which side of the argument is devoid of sound reasoning is totally wrong. We'll have to settle on an irreconcilable difference of opinion, but you can rest assured that the litany of hairs split and excuses contrived in this thread have soundly convinced me I'm on the right side of it. Having said this, imagine how you'd feel if, in response to your no-holds-barred critique of a conservative poster's exceptionally banal arguments, I made it known to you how deeply disappointed I was by your exhibiting such liberal zeal at the expense of truth and reason. ... I'm certain you can deduce where I'm going with this.
I have no problem with either zealousness or conservatism. My disappointment is in reference to the second part of the comparison. Believe me, I take no joy in suggesting such a thing, but I find that explanation far more believable than the alternative: that you just cannot see the distinctions. You're too smart for that.
And again, I already said that you were correct that some of the reasoning heretofore proffered was at least somewhat silly. I don't recall them having been offered as legal viewpoints however. (Nor is that particularly important, so please don't feel the need to go back and fetch them.) 
Finally, one major difference between me and most partisan posters is that I go where the logic takes me. I don't try to make the logic fit a viewpoint. I will espouse both liberal and conservative viewpoints, depending on the issue. My bias is in favor of individual liberties (given that their exercise does not also infringe on the rights of others) and also equal protection and treatment. The other difference with me is that I absolutely do not care what anyone else thinks of me. What matters is what I think of me, and given that my arguments are both logical and well-stated in addition to conforming to most of our society's ideals? I'm fine with that.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jan 24, 2015 21:44:52 GMT -5
Based upon Virgil's poor assumption of an example above, it reads like the baker will bake a cake for anyone (including gay people because Virgil does not exclude them from his example) and for any reason. (S)he just won't ice words on the cake for gay weddings. So if the baker in your example bakes cakes for anyone who asks, even unadorned wedding cakes for gay weddings, if he had offered to provide the icing and the icing bag so Bob and Joe could write "Bob and Joe, Together Forever", that would be a reasonable accommodation. After all, how hard and how long does it take to squiggle 24 letters and punctuation mark on a cake. And if that had happened to a gay couple, they most likely would have called out discrimination and the leftys would have been up in arms about it with them. But, as has been shown time and time again, the way people call out discrimination is, in itself, discriminatory. Just like discrimination laws are discriminatory...they only protect certain people, not everyone. DISCRIMINATION!!!
But the left will never see it...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 17:52:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2015 21:50:25 GMT -5
Based upon Virgil's poor assumption of an example above, it reads like the baker will bake a cake for anyone (including gay people because Virgil does not exclude them from his example) and for any reason. (S)he just won't ice words on the cake for gay weddings. So if the baker in your example bakes cakes for anyone who asks, even unadorned wedding cakes for gay weddings, if he had offered to provide the icing and the icing bag so Bob and Joe could write "Bob and Joe, Together Forever", that would be a reasonable accommodation. After all, how hard and how long does it take to squiggle 24 letters and punctuation mark on a cake. And if that had happened to a gay couple, they most likely would have called out discrimination and the leftys would have been up in arms about it with them. But, as has been shown time and time again, the way people call out discrimination is, in itself, discriminatory. Just like discrimination laws are discriminatory...they only protect certain people, not everyone. DISCRIMINATION!!!
But the left will never see it...
Someone isn't seeing 'it'... That's for sure. |
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,726
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Jan 24, 2015 21:59:34 GMT -5
Based upon Virgil's poor assumption of an example above, it reads like the baker will bake a cake for anyone (including gay people because Virgil does not exclude them from his example) and for any reason. (S)he just won't ice words on the cake for gay weddings. So if the baker in your example bakes cakes for anyone who asks, even unadorned wedding cakes for gay weddings, if he had offered to provide the icing and the icing bag so Bob and Joe could write "Bob and Joe, Together Forever", that would be a reasonable accommodation. After all, how hard and how long does it take to squiggle 24 letters and punctuation mark on a cake. And if that had happened to a gay couple, they most likely would have called out discrimination and the leftys would have been up in arms about it with them. But, as has been shown time and time again, the way people call out discrimination is, in itself, discriminatory. Just like discrimination laws are discriminatory...they only protect certain people, not everyone. DISCRIMINATION!!!
But the left will never see it...
Hypothetical, Hypothetical and then definite conclusion? Seems a bit illogical to me.
I probably will never understand the conservative posters here that are always worried, convinced, etc. about what the "other side" will do or not do. Maybe cakes are different by you, but who even puts any wording on a wedding cake straight, gay, Hispanic, Asian, disabled or military? Yes discrimination laws only look out after certain groups that are generally discriminated against. How weird.  And certain laws only apply to minors or adults. Oh the horror!!!!!!!!! 
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 24, 2015 22:04:51 GMT -5
This is getting waaaay to complicated.
How about if we boil it down to this: Baker A and Baker B sell cakes off of a store menu with pictures. Baker A refuses to sell to a gay couple because of that reason. Baker B will.
If we can't get that far then what message goes on the cake is irrelevant.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515 
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 24, 2015 22:20:05 GMT -5
Based upon Virgil's poor assumption of an example above, it reads like the baker will bake a cake for anyone (including gay people because Virgil does not exclude them from his example) and for any reason. (S)he just won't ice words on the cake for gay weddings. So if the baker in your example bakes cakes for anyone who asks, even unadorned wedding cakes for gay weddings, if he had offered to provide the icing and the icing bag so Bob and Joe could write "Bob and Joe, Together Forever", that would be a reasonable accommodation. After all, how hard and how long does it take to squiggle 24 letters and punctuation mark on a cake. And if that had happened to a gay couple, they most likely would have called out discrimination and the leftys would have been up in arms about it with them. But, as has been shown time and time again, the way people call out discrimination is, in itself, discriminatory. Just like discrimination laws are discriminatory...they only protect certain people, not everyone. DISCRIMINATION!!!
But the left will never see it...
You sure do assume a shitload. |
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Jan 25, 2015 0:07:52 GMT -5
A gay couple (or one person of a gay couple) should (in this day and age) be able to go into a bakery, order a wedding cake, and then pick it up or have it delivered upon completion.
Most wedding cakes today don't have the corny bride/groom figurines on top anymore - they're usually decorated with icing flowers or real flowers, etc.
If I were gay, and in need of a wedding cake, I'd just go into a bakery and order one - tastefully decorated without the cheap plastic "people" on the top.
The bakery doesn't need to know a person's sexual orientation - and if they're discriminating against customers on those grounds, chances are they won't be in business for long.
ETA: The man (from the link) who wanted the Bible cake with a hateful message on it is a bigot - but that isn't illegal. He could order the cake, and get a piping bag & frosting at the grocery store to pipe on the message himself.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,163
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 25, 2015 0:27:17 GMT -5
Wouldn't even have to do that much. They offered it to him. He turned it down, possibly (probably) because he wanted to set up his own "gotcha" lawsuit.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 25, 2015 0:46:06 GMT -5
Wouldn't even have to do that much. They offered it to him. He turned it down, possibly (probably) because he wanted to set up his own "gotcha" lawsuit. And he has failed miserably with his "gotcha" complant as the bakery offered him a more than reasonable religious accommodation, unlike the other bakery which refused outright to do anything for the gay couple. And just because he filed a complaint does not mean there is any merit to it. The department or commission must look into all complaints, even the frivilous ones. The proof will be in the findings. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,144
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 25, 2015 12:26:35 GMT -5
I'm not going to delete your post. Zealousness and conservatism are admirable qualities as far as I'm concerned. Your assessment about which side of the argument is devoid of sound reasoning is totally wrong. We'll have to settle on an irreconcilable difference of opinion, but you can rest assured that the litany of hairs split and excuses contrived in this thread have soundly convinced me I'm on the right side of it. Having said this, imagine how you'd feel if, in response to your no-holds-barred critique of a conservative poster's exceptionally banal arguments, I made it known to you how deeply disappointed I was by your exhibiting such liberal zeal at the expense of truth and reason. ... I'm certain you can deduce where I'm going with this.
I have no problem with either zealousness or conservatism. My disappointment is in reference to the second part of the comparison. Believe me, I take no joy in suggesting such a thing, but I find that explanation far more believable than the alternative: that you just cannot see the distinctions. You're too smart for that.
And again, I already said that you were correct that some of the reasoning heretofore proffered was at least somewhat silly. I don't recall them having been offered as legal viewpoints however. (Nor is that particularly important, so please don't feel the need to go back and fetch them.)
Finally, one major difference between me and most partisan posters is that I go where the logic takes me. I don't try to make the logic fit a viewpoint. I will espouse both liberal and conservative viewpoints, depending on the issue. My bias is in favor of individual liberties (given that their exercise does not also infringe on the rights of others) and also equal protection and treatment. The other difference with me is that I absolutely do not care what anyone else thinks of me. What matters is what I think of me, and given that my arguments are both logical and well-stated in addition to conforming to most of our society's ideals? I'm fine with that.
this is why we get along well. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,144
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 25, 2015 12:36:51 GMT -5
Based upon Virgil's poor assumption of an example above, it reads like the baker will bake a cake for anyone (including gay people because Virgil does not exclude them from his example) and for any reason. (S)he just won't ice words on the cake for gay weddings. So if the baker in your example bakes cakes for anyone who asks, even unadorned wedding cakes for gay weddings, if he had offered to provide the icing and the icing bag so Bob and Joe could write "Bob and Joe, Together Forever", that would be a reasonable accommodation. After all, how hard and how long does it take to squiggle 24 letters and punctuation mark on a cake. And if that had happened to a gay couple, they most likely would have called out discrimination and the leftys would have been up in arms about it with them. But, as has been shown time and time again, the way people call out discrimination is, in itself, discriminatory. Just like discrimination laws are discriminatory...they only protect certain people, not everyone. DISCRIMINATION!!!
But the left will never see it...
I am not a leftie, but I see this logic just fine. the right loves to scream victimhood when their "right" to disregard the rights, feelings, and standing of others is abridged.
unfortunately for them, there IS actually a defense for this. it is the existential argument. if allowing a certain thing/idea to happen endangers the survival of a just principle, it is irrational to accommodate the thing which threatens survival of that principle. in other words, if I am approached by a bigot, I am under no obligation to tolerate him or her, no matter how tolerant I am- because such tolerance, in the greater scheme of things, threatens the IDEA, the PRINCIPLE of tolerance.
this is well studied by the way. I think it has it's own wiki page. look under "tolerating the intolerant".
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,163
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 25, 2015 15:27:35 GMT -5
I have no problem with either zealousness or conservatism. My disappointment is in reference to the second part of the comparison. Believe me, I take no joy in suggesting such a thing, but I find that explanation far more believable than the alternative: that you just cannot see the distinctions. You're too smart for that.
And again, I already said that you were correct that some of the reasoning heretofore proffered was at least somewhat silly. I don't recall them having been offered as legal viewpoints however. (Nor is that particularly important, so please don't feel the need to go back and fetch them.)
Finally, one major difference between me and most partisan posters is that I go where the logic takes me. I don't try to make the logic fit a viewpoint. I will espouse both liberal and conservative viewpoints, depending on the issue. My bias is in favor of individual liberties (given that their exercise does not also infringe on the rights of others) and also equal protection and treatment. The other difference with me is that I absolutely do not care what anyone else thinks of me. What matters is what I think of me, and given that my arguments are both logical and well-stated in addition to conforming to most of our society's ideals? I'm fine with that.
this is why we get along well.
Yes, I know. You, me, and far too few others.... 
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jan 26, 2015 19:34:07 GMT -5
And if that had happened to a gay couple, they most likely would have called out discrimination and the leftys would have been up in arms about it with them. But, as has been shown time and time again, the way people call out discrimination is, in itself, discriminatory. Just like discrimination laws are discriminatory...they only protect certain people, not everyone. DISCRIMINATION!!!
But the left will never see it...
Hypothetical, Hypothetical and then definite conclusion? Seems a bit illogical to me.
I probably will never understand the conservative posters here that are always worried, convinced, etc. about what the "other side" will do or not do. Maybe cakes are different by you, but who even puts any wording on a wedding cake straight, gay, Hispanic, Asian, disabled or military? Yes discrimination laws only look out after certain groups that are generally discriminated against. How weird. And certain laws only apply to minors or adults. Oh the horror!!!!!!!!!
Yes, and here I though that laws were supposed to protect ALL of us...I guess you proved me wrong |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 17:52:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2015 20:06:09 GMT -5
Hypothetical, Hypothetical and then definite conclusion? Seems a bit illogical to me.
I probably will never understand the conservative posters here that are always worried, convinced, etc. about what the "other side" will do or not do. Maybe cakes are different by you, but who even puts any wording on a wedding cake straight, gay, Hispanic, Asian, disabled or military? Yes discrimination laws only look out after certain groups that are generally discriminated against. How weird. And certain laws only apply to minors or adults. Oh the horror!!!!!!!!!
Yes, and here I though that laws were supposed to protect ALL of us...I guess you proved me wrong By protecting the minorities, in a fair and just manner, they actually do protect us all. They protect us from ourselves. |
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602 
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jan 27, 2015 20:48:40 GMT -5
Much like I said about the case of the gay wedding case, if he bakery diesnt want to bake or design your cake, go elsewhere. I would NOT want to force anyone to make me food that they didn't want to make. I'm spiteful enough to sabotage it (oops....forgot the sugar!) but there are some real whackis out there who might go even further
And I really wish people would stop clogging up out court system with bullshit cases
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 27, 2015 21:00:14 GMT -5
Much like I said about the case of the gay wedding case, if he bakery diesnt want to bake or design your cake, go elsewhere. I would NOT want to force anyone to make me food that they didn't want to make. I'm spiteful enough to sabotage it (oops....forgot the sugar!) but there are some real whackis out there who might go even further And I really wish people would stop clogging up out court system with bullshit cases This case is not in any court. The case is being handled and reviewed by the Colorado Civil Rights Division which deals with cases of discrimination in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodation. A state version of an EEOC office. |
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jan 27, 2015 21:01:50 GMT -5
Much like I said about the case of the gay wedding case, if he bakery diesnt want to bake or design your cake, go elsewhere. I would NOT want to force anyone to make me food that they didn't want to make. I'm spiteful enough to sabotage it (oops....forgot the sugar!) but there are some real whackis out there who might go even further And I really wish people would stop clogging up out court system with bullshit cases This case is not in any court. The case is being handled and reviewed by the Colorado Civil Rights Division which deals with cases of discrimination in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodation. A state version of an EEOC office. Ok..I wish we wouldn't use taxpayer resources for bullshit reasons. For the love of God, it is just a freaking cake! |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 27, 2015 21:05:18 GMT -5
This case is not in any court. The case is being handled and reviewed by the Colorado Civil Rights Division which deals with cases of discrimination in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodation. A state version of an EEOC office. Ok..I wish we wouldn't use taxpayer resources for bullshit reasons. For the love of God, it is just a freaking cake! A cake today. A new home in a neighborhood with better schools tomorrow  . |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 27, 2015 21:11:46 GMT -5
I think in this case the market can fix it- no business owner in their right mind would want to alienate half of the country- and thanks to the internet word travels fast if a company is anti-gay. And it is not just gay people that are going to quit going there- it is people that support gay people. Didn't that one shop go out of business after the whole fiasco? Not one lawyer required.
Of course most people probably don't care- but I vote with my very small wallet. I don't shop at Walmart, will not go into a Burger King, will not buy a pizza from Papa Johns, etc. because of stances or actions they have taken. The same goes for cake shops- if I need a cake for some reason I will research first. |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 27, 2015 21:16:35 GMT -5
Ok..I wish we wouldn't use taxpayer resources for bullshit reasons. For the love of God, it is just a freaking cake! A cake today. A new home in a neighborhood with better schools tomorrow . Oh that still goes on- just not officially. Black people get steered into certain neighborhoods and even to certain lenders regardless of their credit. It is institutional discrimination and the law is the only way to fight it- and they are welcome to use my taxes in those endeavors.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 30, 2015 13:49:47 GMT -5
Much like I said about the case of the gay wedding case, if he bakery diesnt want to bake or design your cake, go elsewhere. I would NOT want to force anyone to make me food that they didn't want to make. I'm spiteful enough to sabotage it (oops....forgot the sugar!) but there are some real whackis out there who might go even further And I really wish people would stop clogging up out court system with bullshit cases I thought you said you USED TO BE a mean girl. |
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jan 30, 2015 13:54:17 GMT -5
Much like I said about the case of the gay wedding case, if he bakery diesnt want to bake or design your cake, go elsewhere. I would NOT want to force anyone to make me food that they didn't want to make. I'm spiteful enough to sabotage it (oops....forgot the sugar!) but there are some real whackis out there who might go even further And I really wish people would stop clogging up out court system with bullshit cases I thought you said you USED TO BE a mean girl. That's not mean...just spiteful. Don't make me do something that is against my morals just because you can legally do so. I'm not dumb enough to outright say no because I would get sued and lose everything...so I would intentionally screw up the cake and enjoy doing so. Then we both win. The person forcing me to do what I didn't want to do and me for giving you a shitty product but knowing that you couldn't actually prove I did it on purpose
For the record...I have always said I would have made the cake...I'm talking about a situation where I was very much opposed to doing something. Then I would 100% sabotage it
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 30, 2015 14:24:42 GMT -5
I thought you said you USED TO BE a mean girl. That's not mean...just spiteful. Don't make me do something that is against my morals just because you can legally do so. I'm not dumb enough to outright say no because I would get sued and lose everything...so I would intentionally screw up the cake and enjoy doing so. Then we both win. The person forcing me to do what I didn't want to do and me for giving you a shitty product but knowing that you couldn't actually prove I did it on purpose
For the record...I have always said I would have made the cake...I'm talking about a situation where I was very much opposed to doing something. Then I would 100% sabotage it
spite·ful adjective \ˈspīt-fəl\ : having or showing a desire to harm, anger, or defeat someone : having or showing spite |
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jan 30, 2015 14:34:34 GMT -5
That's not mean...just spiteful. Don't make me do something that is against my morals just because you can legally do so. I'm not dumb enough to outright say no because I would get sued and lose everything...so I would intentionally screw up the cake and enjoy doing so. Then we both win. The person forcing me to do what I didn't want to do and me for giving you a shitty product but knowing that you couldn't actually prove I did it on purpose
For the record...I have always said I would have made the cake...I'm talking about a situation where I was very much opposed to doing something. Then I would 100% sabotage it
spite·ful adjective \ˈspīt-fəl\ : having or showing a desire to harm, anger, or defeat someone : having or showing spite I'm not sure the point of this reply...I know I'm trying to defeat that person without causing myself harm. Were you just clarifying what I said?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 30, 2015 14:46:12 GMT -5
spite·ful adjective \ˈspīt-fəl\ : having or showing a desire to harm, anger, or defeat someone : having or showing spite I'm not sure the point of this reply...I know I'm trying to defeat that person without causing myself harm. Were you just clarifying what I said?
Oy vay. You said, "I'm spiteful enough to sabotage it (oops....forgot the sugar!)" Someone replied, "I thought you said you USED TO BE a mean girl." you replied with, "That's not mean...just spiteful." So I provided the definition of spiteful. Which reads like the person who wants to be spiteful to others is mean. As a noun, spite means 'A desire to hurt, annoy, or offend someone:" And as a verb, spite means "Deliberately hurt, annoy, or offend (someone):" I decided to get a second definition of the word 'spiteful. So on the search line in Google, I typed the words 'spiteful' 'definition' and 'OED' (for Oxford English dictionary). Google those three words and look at the second entry. I have no idea if you are or not, but I did get a chuckle out of it. |
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jan 30, 2015 15:45:13 GMT -5
I'm not sure the point of this reply...I know I'm trying to defeat that person without causing myself harm. Were you just clarifying what I said?
Oy vay. You said, "I'm spiteful enough to sabotage it (oops....forgot the sugar!)" Someone replied, "I thought you said you USED TO BE a mean girl." you replied with, "That's not mean...just spiteful." So I provided the definition of spiteful. Which reads like the person who wants to be spiteful to others is mean. As a noun, spite means 'A desire to hurt, annoy, or offend someone:" And as a verb, spite means "Deliberately hurt, annoy, or offend (someone):" I decided to get a second definition of the word 'spiteful. So on the search line in Google, I typed the words 'spiteful' 'definition' and 'OED' (for Oxford English dictionary). Google those three words and look at the second entry. I have no idea if you are or not, but I did get a chuckle out of it. I'm ok with you all thinking it is mean...or that I'm mean. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 17:52:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 18:22:50 GMT -5
spite·ful adjective \ˈspīt-fəl\ : having or showing a desire to harm, anger, or defeat someone : having or showing spite I'm not sure the point of this reply...I know I'm trying to defeat that person without causing myself harm. Were you just clarifying what I said?
If you are in the cake baking business, and you intentionally put out a sabotaged product, whether you admit to it or not, you are still causing yourself harm. I guarantee people would hear about the awful cake you made and you'd lose just as much business (if not more) because of the bad cake. That it was done on purpose would be irrelevant to people that heard it was nasty. They'd think you don't know how to bake a cake. |
|
~ Friendships Are Warm ~ True Passions are Fire ~ 
