|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
|
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Christina |
Posted - November 10 2004 : 1:31:00 PM
Okay, guys. I'm throwing this one out for discussion. The article below personally disturbs me to no end. I know because of religious differences folks on this board will feel very differently about contraception, but the idea of someone not being able to get access to a certain medication because of a pharmacists' religious belief is scary.
http://www.prevention.com/article/0,5778,s1-1-93-35-4130-1,00.html
An article about this also appeared in USA Today yesterday. One pharmacist in the Midwest not only refused to fill a woman's prescription for The Pill, but he also refused to transfer the prescription to another Pharmacist or to even give her back her paper prescription.
I'm sorry, I say believe what you want and live your faith to the fullest, but your religious belief should not impact another person's health care decisions or necessities. Many women out there (yours truly included) take The Pill not for its contraceptive purpose but for medical conditions. What if suddenly tomorrow some religious group comes forward and says a certain cholesterol drug is against their beliefs? Where does this mess stop?
What's your say on this one??? |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Kaylynn44 |
Posted - November 20 2004 : 7:18:22 PM
Oh Honey, do you remember how long ago that Clinton/Lewinsky thing was? She is 17 now and could likely teach ME something!
Just as long as she doesn't think that it is a sandwhich anymore. 
And yes, I do believe that you are right. I think the younger generation knows a little bit more than we do,or more than we want to know. 
Something else that I need to clear up. Someone very good naturedly PM'd me and informed me that "phobe" is not a word, but a suffix. I shouldn't go anywhere near any type of Latin words or suffixes. Did I mention that I flunked Latin, but the teacher was cute. 
Just wanted to clear that up before Sarge or Susquesus got on to me about it too.
Love,
Kay |
| Gadget Girl |
Posted - November 20 2004 : 6:27:06 PM
quote:
Kay wrote: Okay, I have had my laugh for the day, but don't you think that you better straighten her out on the "BJ" and "PB&J" thing before one of her friends do? You know how teenagers are. They are almost as bad as we are when it comes to these things. 
Love,
Kay
Oh Honey, do you remember how long ago that Clinton/Lewinsky thing was? She is 17 now and could likely teach ME something! 
GG  |
| Kaylynn44 |
Posted - November 20 2004 : 6:20:40 PM
But then, couldn't it also mean having the same sex all the time All this word talk reminds me of a time I was watching The View (detest that show - I think it was just "on") and the girls started talking about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky and the term "BJ" came up. Miss Ears, my daughter, said "Mom, is that like a PB&J?", I said "Exactly, Honey!" She then says "So why is everyone so upset that the girl fixed the President a sandwich? Doesn't HE have to eat too?" I said "Yes, people are just silly sometimes". WELL?...what was I supposed to say?
Poor little younguns have so much information to process, it's no wonder we still struggle as adults. Once, before crossing the road, I asked Jordan, "Now what are we supposed to do to before we cross the road?" She looked at me with this quizzical scrunched up face and said "Stop, Drop, and Roll??????"
Okay, I have had my laugh for the day, but don't you think that you better straighten her out on the "BJ" and "PB&J" thing before one of her friends do? You know how teenagers are. They are almost as bad as we are when it comes to these things.
Love,
Kay |
| Gadget Girl |
Posted - November 20 2004 : 4:49:06 PM
But then, couldn't it also mean having the same sex all the time  All this word talk reminds me of a time I was watching The View (detest that show - I think it was just "on") and the girls started talking about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky and the term "BJ" came up. Miss Ears, my daughter, said "Mom, is that like a PB&J?", I said "Exactly, Honey!" She then says "So why is everyone so upset that the girl fixed the President a sandwich? Doesn't HE have to eat too?" I said "Yes, people are just silly sometimes". WELL?...what was I supposed to say? 
Poor little younguns have so much information to process, it's no wonder we still struggle as adults. Once, before crossing the road, I asked Jordan, "Now what are we supposed to do to before we cross the road?" She looked at me with this quizzical scrunched up face and said "Stop, Drop, and Roll??????"
GG  Man, it's a multifaceted thread now! Ramble, ramble, Howl at the moon! |
| Kaylynn44 |
Posted - November 20 2004 : 4:24:56 PM
And Next, I simply had to laugh that you guys are having a discussion on whether homophobe is a word or not. To me... when I use a word and the person I'm talking to understands what I mean, then it's a word!
That is one way of looking at it GG.
I was in another group and we kind of had the same discussion, only it was about the word "homosexual." One girl said that only males were homosexual because the Latin word "homo" means male, so homosexuals can only be male. Another girl said that she was wrong. She said that "homo" is from the Greek word meaning "same", therefore it is people of the same sex having sex. Since I failed Latin in high school and I don't know Greek, I stayed out of it.
As for the word or non-word "homophobe," I think that "homo" is just a shortened version of "homosexual" and well, even though I flunked Latin, I still know what "phobe" means, so it is the fear of homosexuals. I don't think that it is a fear like a "run-down-the road-screaming-for-your-life" fear, but a fear like you don't want to be near anyone that is homosexual, for fear that they will hit on you.
Hey, wasn't I the one that asked how we strayed from the original question??? Sorry!!!
Love,
Kay |
| Gadget Girl |
Posted - November 20 2004 : 12:27:17 PM
quote:
Sarge said:
I can see where you would think that Nazis are not to the idelogical "Left", because of the 'diversity issue'. If you look at those who spout 'diversity' here in the U.S. today, you will find it is only a qualified diversity, that being only those who can claim some aggreived status (real or imagined) may apply. Placed in that light, it fits alot with the tenets of Marxism (Dividing a people, by 'creating' sub-groups), which is in turn the "uncle" of National Socialism. The only real difference between a Marxist and a Nazi, is that a Marxist controls all means of production, whereas a Nazi will control the groups that control production. Both believe in command economy, both believe that power is originated at the top and 'issued' to those below (As opposed to the power resting in the hands of the citizens, who consent to be governed), and both strive for maximum government interference/control in the lives of citizens. I hope that this helps to clarify my position.
I agree that "qualified diversity" is not the ideal. It would be nice if no one ever even thought about someone's economic or cultural background when considering that person for a job or scholarship. But this ain't a perfect world yet, and sometimes we have to provide opportunities to people that otherwise wouldn't have a chance to be considered. I also get extremely irritated at the reverse, when I see those people that are given "opportunites", take advantage of them. For instance, once I was on my way to the hospital from our clinic building and one of my patients wanted to know where to park at the hospital as she was being admitted. I offered to just ride over with her to show her where to park (it IS a confusing mess). Since she had been my patient, I knew she was on Medicaid and we walked over to her newish Mercedes and she had to remove her laptop computer from the front seat so I could get in ( and that was back in the 90's when few had laptops). One has to wonder..."What's up with that?" I see similar situations all the time and see folks who truly do need assistance that can't get it - Like I said it ain't a perfect world yet. There will always be folks that find loopholes in systems. BUT I BY FAR think our society is better than it was in the 60's by way of finding ways to erase inequities for all. As a faculty member in a university system - BELIEVE ME - we get the term "diversity" rammed down our throats. Perhaps we are in a climate where things are swinging a little more to the other extreme from previous decades, but I have faith it will become more equalized over time. It is kind of like letting cream rise to the top. In a culture where some "cream" components are inhibited, an agent may need to be added to ensure ALL the cream rises to the top - and I hope through trial and error we find the best way for that to happen. Therefore, I do not see the term Cultural Marxism being a viable, real term that describes what more liberal thinkers are striving for. The goals just don't fit! I think it is a buzz word for the times, as "politically correct" is/was. I think the situation in this country is much more complex for those theories to apply ( remember the "lumping" discussions months ago?). I don't think right wing folks are naziesque any more than I subscribe to the idea that liberals are any form of marxists. It's all WHOOEY to me, but interesting to discuss. Pure capitalism in a free society works, but sometimes imbalances may need to be balanced. When those imbalances get tipped too far one way or the other, and I don't think they are, then one might start trying to apply some bastardized form of those theories.
GG - It's the weekend - this makes my brain hurt! |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - November 20 2004 : 10:33:07 AM
P.S.- Thank you, GG, for the compliments. I did enjoy the one about the 'shrinking room', that was a hoot! I too learn alot from these forums, as I do from all people who walk into and out of my life. Heck, life itself is a learning experience...
|
| SgtMunro |
Posted - November 20 2004 : 04:29:29 AM
quote:
Gadget Girl observed: Next I am a bit confused here. If Right-Wing Nazi is an oxymoron, then that would mean that Left-wingers are the Nazis. Hmmmmm, but those on the left (except for a precious few) are Cultural Marxists. Having read the essay Sarge posted, then...desiring equality too equals Cultural Marxism, but Nazism tenets (not simply National Socialism) state that great races (not diverse races) make great nations.
I can see where you would think that Nazis are not to the idelogical "Left", because of the 'diversity issue'. If you look at those who spout 'diversity' here in the U.S. today, you will find it is only a qualified diversity, that being only those who can claim some aggreived status (real or imagined) may apply. Placed in that light, it fits alot with the tenets of Marxism (Dividing a people, by 'creating' sub-groups), which is in turn the "uncle" of National Socialism. The only real difference between a Marxist and a Nazi, is that a Marxist controls all means of production, whereas a Nazi will control the groups that control production. Both believe in command economy, both believe that power is originated at the top and 'issued' to those below (As opposed to the power resting in the hands of the citizens, who consent to be governed), and both strive for maximum government interference/control in the lives of citizens. I hope that this helps to clarify my position.
quote:
Gadget Girl finished with: Speaking of stolen prescritions... not so long ago one of our Reproductive Endocrinologists noticed his script pad was missing. A few days later he got a call from a local pharmacy asking if he had written a prescription that read..."Mofeen - 1 pound". Of course the pharmacist knew he hadn't, but just had to ask
That's a good one! I am reminded of a robbery investigation that I did nine years ago, where I had to interview the girlfriend of the suspect. She pronounced her name a fa-mal-EE. When I asked her to spell it for me, she answered "F-E-M-A-L-E". I told her that it was a very interesting and unique name. She smiled, and proudly said, "My mamma said the hospital gave it to me." At this point my partner had to leave the interview room, where I heard him roaring with laughter out in the hallway...
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| Gadget Girl |
Posted - November 20 2004 : 02:14:04 AM
Will wonders never cease?! I actually have to admit I agree with the Sarge on two points. Count 'em TWO!!! First, I agree you are ONE of the resident "Right-Wing Nut-Jobs", but you are an informed RWNJ. Secondly, I have to agree on the point of not making it a law to require pharmicists to dispense medications if the act of doing so is against their beliefs. As patients, we insist on autonomy. Autonomy basically being a "right to refuse", NOT a "right to demand". While I would be mad as hell at a pharmacist that didn't fill a script for me, I would do as the RWNJ...oops, Sarge has suggested and it would be a cold day in hell before I did ANY business with that particular pharmacy, as Kate also suggested. And I would tell everyone I know to do the same. I do think that any medical professional, pharmacists included, should uphold a degree of professional integrity to carry out the duties of their scope of practice. If some of those duties go against their beliefs, then they perhaps shouldn't work in an area where they will be challenged (like on a floor of a pediatric wing of a hospital, or an intensive care section pharmacy). Now...if a pharmacist were to retain a script, then I would call my local law enforcement and report a theft! That, to me, is no different than a young drug addict stealing Aunt Mary's valium perscription. I do think Christina's point about Viagra was a viable one. Yes, it is a medication to treat a medical condition (as birth control pills can frequently be), but what if the pharmacist required a marriage license or wedding ring to dispense it - would make about as much sense as the pill issue!
Next I am a bit confused here. If Right-Wing Nazi is an oxymoron, then that would mean that Left-wingers are the Nazis. Hmmmmm, but those on the left (except for a precious few) are Cultural Marxists. Having read the essay Sarge posted, then...desiring equality too equals Cultural Marxism, but Nazism tenets (not simply National Socialism) state that great races (not diverse races) make great nations. So therefore...I do not see that Right-Wing Nazi is an oxymoron, a profound insult maybe, but not an oxymoron. Regarding the Marxist and Nazi terms, I think they are simply an attempt to use a word with a bad connotation to make a point. My opinion - I do not have time each day to provide "evidence" to back every thought or opinion I might have. Just me here, howling at the moon!
And Next, I simply had to laugh that you guys are having a discussion on whether homophobe is a word or not. To me... when I use a word and the person I'm talking to understands what I mean, then it's a word!
Regarding the climate of this site - I think it is fine. I find that most of the discussions lately that have been done in a respectful manner ('cept Rich - what were you thinking? - tsk, tsk  ), are thought provoking, and I am more informed as a result because if something bothers me - I go find out more about it. Although I seldom agree with Sarge, and think he makes his point sometimes with the finesse of a shrinking room with no door, I have learned a great deal from most of his posts. The learning part goes for most everyone elses posts too. It takes a lot of time (and guts sometimes) to post a long thoughtful post, and I think on the whole, this is still a great place to hang out!
Speaking of stolen prescritions... not so long ago one of our Reproductive Endocrinologists noticed his script pad was missing. A few days later he got a call from a local pharmacy asking if he had written a prescription that read..."Mofeen - 1 pound". Of course the pharmacist knew he hadn't, but just had to ask
GG 
|
| Kaylynn44 |
Posted - November 19 2004 : 6:46:46 PM
A very good question, and one for which I shoulder the bulk of the blame. You will find the TIQ (Tangent In Question) on page #1 of this thread.
Thanks Sarge. I went back and reread some of the posts. When I asked the question earlier, I just kind of skimmed over some of the responses, so I didn't realize how the subject got changed. As for "homophobe" being a word..........Webster couldn't be wrong......right????
Love,
Kay |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - November 19 2004 : 5:47:45 PM
quote:
Kaylynn44 states: Well, my opinion about Christina's question is that if a pharmacist works for a drugstore like Eckerd or CVS, then they should not be allowed to let their personal beliefs interfere with
their job. It is their job to fill the prescriptions.
If it is a case of the personal beliefs of an employee going against company policy, you would have a very valid point. Such an employee should be dealt with through disciplinary action. However, if it is the company policy (and therefore the personal beliefs of the board of directors) not to dispense such medications, then you have a scenario similar to the privately-owned 'mom & pop' establishment, that being your only recourse is to shop elsewhere.
quote:
Kaylynn44 also asked: BTW, how did we get from the original question to whether or not homophobe is a real word.
A very good question, and one for which I shoulder the bulk of the blame. You will find the TIQ (Tangent In Question) on page #1 of this thread.
quote:
richfed added: Ooops! Did I cross the line? Honestly, didn't mean to offend anyone, especially not you, Doc. It was a visual - much like what you have your Hurons doing quite often.
Nonetheless, it is "offending" to me to hear people referred to as homophobes, word or not, because they do not embrace the behavior. It is tossed around all too frequently ...
You are right Sachem, certain people feel that it is alright to 'cross the line' when their own beliefs are not questioned, but anyone else who might speak against them in the public square is deemed a 'hate monger'. As I said before (and might have even to the person in question) you have no Constitutional Right 'Not To Be Offended'. Personal attacks, such as "You are an idiot!" are something different than, "You are an extreme conservative" or "You are a cultural marxist". The first is specious and bears no true value (Unless of course, the person has been adjudicated 'Mentally Deficient' by the courts or licensed medical professionals), the last two are descriptions of (Sometimes partial or incorrect) one's beliefs and are not attacks, but observations.
Okay, I am getting off on another tangent, so please forgive me. Sachem, I can see the reasons why you do not care for the word 'homophobe', but if it were a real word (Which I believe I have demostrated it is not), then it would fall into the bracket of being a description of one's beliefs, and it would not offend me. Even when someone refers to me as a 'Right-Wing Nut-Job', that does not bother me, since I always consider the source (My fencing instructor, from more than 20 years back, once said "What does the Moon care, if dogs howl at it"). Other names like "Right-Wing Nazi" or "Homophobe" demand correction, since they are either an oxymoron or an illegitimate word. What I am saying is, call me names if you like, but you better be correct on your descriptions, otherwise I will correct you. That my friends is the nature of a free society...
Your Most Humble Servant,
and resident "Right-Wing Nut-Job",
|
| Kaylynn44 |
Posted - November 19 2004 : 12:51:42 PM
Well, my opinion about Christina's question is that if a pharmacist works for a drugstore like Eckerd or CVS, then they should not be allowed to let their personal beliefs interfere with
their job. It is their job to fill the prescriptions. I don't care what it is for. If a doctor prescribes a certain medication or pill for a person, then it isn't up to the pharmacist to tell this person that they can't have their prescription filled.
Now, if they own a pharmacy, I guess that it would be up to their own discretion as to whether or not thay filled a prescription, but I would be highly teed off if the pharmacist refused to give me back my prescription. 
BTW, how did we get from the original question to whether or not homophobe is a real word. 
Love,
Kay |
| richfed |
Posted - November 19 2004 : 05:50:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Doc M
So glad to see diversity and harmony are alive and well on the Board.
If you're doing any more polls, you can check me off as "offended."
Doc M
Ooops! Did I cross the line? Honestly, didn't mean to offend anyone, especially not you, Doc. It was a visual - much like what you have your Hurons doing quite often.
Nonetheless, it is "offending" to me to hear people referred to as homophobes, word or not, because they do not embrace the behavior. It is tossed around all too frequently ... |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - November 19 2004 : 03:35:06 AM
quote:
susquesus asks: I haven't studied Marxism since high school, can you suggest any resources that more clearly explain your thought here? Is this really a "Marxist" school of thought?
To answer both questions, "Yes" and "yes". First, the quote was a rough translation of one from Lenin. Some folks think that the only thing Marx did was to design an economic system; on the contrary, he designed a whole social order. Marxists realize, as also pointed out by Lenin, that the truth is the enemy of any policy which conflicts it (As opposed to free societies, where policy is based upon truths). Case in point was the assination of Trotsky, he went from being a worshiped member of the Soviet pantheon, to being 'public enemy number one' in a very short time, and with no real evidence of his alleged trangressions. The media spun the story of his betrayals, and all f the local party bosses did the same. Eventually, Trotsky was forced to flee his own country. This did not satiate the Marxists one bit, because as long as Trotsky lived so did the truth, they eventually hunted him down and killed him in Mexico.
You have witnessed the same thing in the Democratic Party, where true Liberals like Senator Lieberman are marginalized, while Marxists like Kennedy, Clinton and Kerry are lionized.
quote:
susquesus then asked: And who is it that determines what is REAL innovation of thought, deed or action?
A real innovation does not need to be announced or propped-up, the facts always shine through.
quote:
susquesus followed with: I still don't buy this line of reasoning. Calling something we don't approve of a lie or illegitimate doesn't always work.
It does work, if it is illegitimate. Remember what I said about facts...
quote:
susquesus then added: Explain further. If we can't use latin roots to form "homo-phobe" how can we use it in other situations? Is this another situation for the "World Language Police" to put their stamp of approval on? Please flesh out your arguement. I'm interested.
Because unlike 'homophobe', the word 'telephone' does not cause a verbal dead-end, and therefore is a legitimate word.
quote:
susquesus finished with: I'm loving this discussion, let's keep it going. I honestly mean that. I appreciate this exchange.
I agree, it is nice to 'cross swords' with someone who is not an ill-tempered amateur. Keep it up, this is fun!!!
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| susquesus |
Posted - November 19 2004 : 01:34:42 AM
If I would, it would be subscribing to a Marxist school of thought; that being if you repeat a lie often enough and loud enough, it becomes your reality.
-Sgt. Munro
I haven't studied Marxism since high school, can you suggest any resources that more clearly explain your thought here? Is this really a "Marxist" school of thought?
That is only true for real innovation of thought, deed or action.
-Sgt. Munro
And who is it that determines what is REAL innovation of thought, deed or action? I've never heard of this group. Where does this supreme council that legitimizes "innovation of thought, deed, or action" convene? The vatican? If the pope used the word "homophobe" would that do the trick? I still don't buy this line of reasoning. Calling something we don't approve of a lie or illegitimate doesn't always work. How many scientists were executed by the church for saying that the earth wasn't the center of the universe, or that the world wasn't flat? How many people were killed as witches? What about discrimination against women, blacks, Irish, etc... Change in viewpoints are inevitable, even if it doesn't fit neatly into pre-existing value systems.
Sorry, but your 'Roman telephone' argument does not hold water.
-Sgt. Munro
Explain further. If we can't use latin roots to form "homo-phobe" how can we use it in other situations? Is this another situation for the "World Language Police" to put their stamp of approval on? Please flesh out your arguement. I'm interested.
I'm loving this discussion, let's keep it going. I honestly mean that. I appreciate this exchange.
You are an excellent example of a true "Conservative" thinker. Remember this one?
con serv a tive: 1.disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones.
Having graduated from a "Liberal" arts college I'm stuck with these questions about innovation. Here's another old favorite that we've agreed in the past describes myself:
lib er al: 1.favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs
I know this all seems goofy and nit-picky but we need these conservative/liberal dialogs to define ourselves. Thanks man. We're obviously on different sides here, I just thank God we live in a country where we can discuss our differences civilly and thoroughly and have the opportunity to get into the "other" sides head.
And for the folks that haven't done the Sarge's research here are some more helpful words:
cul tur al: of or pertaining to culture or cultivation
cul ture: 1.the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc. 2.that which is excellent in the arts, manners, etc.. 3.a particular form or stage of civilization, as that of a certain nation or period 4.development or improvement of the mind by education or training 5.the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group 6.the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another.
Marx ism:the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitaion of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.
|
| SgtMunro |
Posted - November 18 2004 : 11:46:47 PM
quote:
susquesus noted: Yes, if people start using the term widely it becomes part of the lexicon. So go ahead and try to popularize your "heterophobe" and "androphobe" and maybe you'll help to make them widely used terms.
If I would, it would be subscribing to a Marxist school of thought; that being if you repeat a lie often enough and loud enough, it becomes your reality.
quote:
susquesus also noted: The English language is a living thing that grows and changes.
That is only true for real innovation of thought, deed or action. Sorry, but your 'Roman telephone' argument does not hold water, and the word 'fart' has been around since the pre-Elizabethian Era...
quote:
susquesus then added: Latin itself is a dead language it has been co-opted to form the majority of the european languages and is thus no longer "pure". Other than it's use in Catholicism (most Catholic houses of worship offer English as well as Latin masses) and as a tool of international scientific classifications it is used chiefly as a building block of the languages that followed it. I don't see these as "bastardizations".
When any language is used improperly, it is a bastardization, like it or not. As to Latin being dead, that is only true in conversational Latin, the language is still being used (as you noted) in scientific classification, the professional works of medicine and law, as well as classical literary studies and (as you also noted) certain religons. Enough proper usage to prevent it from being hijacked by cultural marxists, without a fight.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| susquesus |
Posted - November 18 2004 : 10:34:39 PM
susquesus also noted: And I still say homophobia is a genuine word.
If that is truly the case, then using Webster's model as a construct (and one that you obviously approve of), would a homosexual's animosity toward heterosexual society be properly labled as 'heterophobia'? How about a feminist who holds animosty toward males, would she be labled an 'androphobe'? (Androphobia or 'fear of men' is an actual psychological condition, but used to describe animosity causes it falls short of the mark) Do you see what could happen when one bastardizes an ancient and honorable language like Latin? Think about it...
-Sgt. Munro
Yes, if people start using the term widely it becomes part of the lexicon. So go ahead and try to popularize your "heterophobe" and "androphobe" and maybe you'll help to make them widely used terms. The English language is a living thing that grows and changes. I don't get "the vapors" these days, I just let one rip and "Fart". That's why we don't call automobiles "horseless carriages" anymore. Should we not use words like "tele-phone" because the Romans didn't? Latin itself is a dead language it has been co-opted to form the majority of the european languages and is thus no longer "pure". Other than it's use in Catholicism (most Catholic houses of worship offer English as well as Latin masses) and as a tool of international scientific classifications it is used chiefly as a building block of the languages that followed it. I don't see these as "bastardizations".
By the way, what would be considered a "dishonorable" language?
|
| susquesus |
Posted - November 18 2004 : 7:23:38 PM
Yup, very eloquent folks. |
| Christina |
Posted - November 18 2004 : 2:15:15 PM
Okay, guys, that phrase is a little vulgar. I'm not censoring anybody here, but ....eewwwww.... |
| Doc M |
Posted - November 18 2004 : 1:45:48 PM
So glad to see diversity and harmony are alive and well on the Board.
If you're doing any more polls, you can check me off as "offended."
Doc M |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - November 18 2004 : 08:04:48 AM
quote:
susquesus stated: Yup, I thought about making that point but figured that you would have an essay to "legitimize" it as a term.
Actually, it is history, facts and research that "legitimize" the term, I just chose an essay as the way to present it.
quote:
susquesus also noted: And I still say homophobia is a genuine word.
If that is truly the case, then using Webster's model as a construct (and one that you obviously approve of), would a homosexual's animosity toward heterosexual society be properly labled as 'heterophobia'? How about a feminist who holds animosty toward males, would she be labled an 'androphobe'? (Androphobia or 'fear of men' is an actual psychological condition, but used to describe animosity causes it falls short of the mark) Do you see what could happen when one bastardizes an ancient and honorable language like Latin? Think about it...
quote:
richfed then added: I can't say if it's a word or not ... I do know it is missused to describe everyone not embracing the act of fudge-packing ... excuse the vernacular.
I'll excuse the vernacular, as long as you can excuse me falling off of my chair and laughing my tail off. Good one, Sachem...
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| richfed |
Posted - November 18 2004 : 05:41:55 AM
I can't say if it's a word or not ... I do know it is missused to describe everyone not embracing the act of fudge-packing ... excuse the vernacular.
|
| susquesus |
Posted - November 17 2004 : 11:17:20 PM
Now susquesus, I think I know what your next question is going to be, "Hey Sarge, cultural marxism isn't a real word either." You are correct, it is not a real word, it is however two real words which together describe a destructive mindset in our country today.
- Sgt. Munro
Yup, I thought about making that point but figured that you would have an essay to "legitimize" it as a term. Not a battle I'm interested in fighting. I will, however, continue to put stock in the folks at Websters. They know words, it's their job.
And I still say homophobia is a genuine word. -You gots' to do better than that...
|
| SgtMunro |
Posted - November 17 2004 : 6:45:57 PM
quote:
Christina noted: I think if you're going to hold women to a certain moral standard men should be treated in the same way. Would the same pharmacist who refused to sell a woman the pill also refuse to sell a man a box of condoms????
Actually Christina, the comparison of birth control pills to condoms is far more accurate, than to compare birth control pills to a drug meant to correct a medical condition. In that case, I would still respect the pharmacist's morals, and take my money elsewhere. Oh, and "yes", as you can tell I do believe that a man and woman should be treated equally.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| Christina |
Posted - November 17 2004 : 3:43:23 PM
Sarge, I was just trying to throw the Viagra question out as a hypothetical, wondering what the reaction would be to a story about that. So far the only customers affected in this situation with pharmacists throwing their moral weight around have been women. I'd just be intrigued to see what the reaction would be -- or if there would be one -- should a pharmacist, male or female, decide to deny sexual potency drugs to a MAN when he/she had reason to know that the man was not married. Sex outside marriage is just as much a moral debate among many people as the issue of contraception and abortion is.
The other reason the issue would be interesting to me is that in some cases in recent years, it has been documented that some insurance policies, for instance, will cover a prescription for Viagra or another similar pill but won't cover, in some cases, contraception for women.
I'm not trying to accuse anybody of anything or label anybody. I just would be interested to see how this pharmacist-as-moral-policeman/woman situation would work if the primary affected individuals were males. I think if you're going to hold women to a certain moral standard men should be treated in the same way. Would the same pharmacist who refused to sell a woman the pill also refuse to sell a man a box of condoms???? Just interesting hypothetical situations. |
|
Around The Site:
~ What's New? ~
Pathfinding
|
Mohican Gatherings
|
Mohican Musings
|
LOTM Script
|
History
|
Musical Musings
|
Storefronts on the Frontier
Off the Beaten Trail
|
Links
Of Special Interest:
The Eric Schweig Gallery
|
From the Ramparts
|
The Listening Room
|
Against All Odds
|
The Video Clips Index
DISCLAIMER
Tune, 40, used by permission - composed by Ron Clarke
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
 |
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.22 seconds |
 |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
