Cadman was bribed by Harper but refused.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@May 21 2005, 04:15 AM
FA he is stating that definitions change, and that is the truth of the matter. While at one time the term whore was meant to describe prostitutes the definition has changed in order to encompass a wider spectrum. Much like the definition of marriage has changed in order to accompany same sex relationships. I think that everyone (and I suspect you did to) picked up on what was being said. The way in which the term was used was not in itself a sexist remark.

If you want to translate it into another area in rap music it is quite common to hear the n-word being used in order to describe black people, and this even occurs in rap music which is produced by whites. While at one time this was a serious insult, now the times have changed, and the definition has changed. No one on the board is sexist because they called a lady a power-whore. Actually I would say the only person that is being sexist would be you through massive double standards in the way in which you treat men in comparison to women. The term whore is by definition not solely applicable to women, and well you seem to think that it is.

I think that you are stuck on the old defintions of the word and can't accept the fact that the word as it currently states is not gender specific, especially in the sense that it was given.

Again, I hate repeating myself, but I am not talking about defintions as much as I am meaning.

He is so hung up on dictionary defintion #7464 to justify using a derogatory term that he is failing to understand the difference between "definition" and "meaning". Like in my old example, call a black person the "n-word", and then call a white person the "n-word". The dictionary definition stays the same, but the meaning changes depending on who is being attacked. It's the same similarity when you call a man a "slut" and a woman a "slut". How can people not see that? Definitions can be changed all you want, but it won't change what the word means! Just like changing the definition of the word "marriage" should not change what that the word means to straight people who get married. Language does not begin and end with the dictionary. In fact, a dictionary is not even a citable source for an acedemic paper.

Definition does not equal meaning. Definition is just what Webster (or whoever) thought the word should mean. The actual meaning of a word is societal and has nuances not easily described in a dictionary.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

The term power-whore has been used to describe both men and women for the same reason. If lets say I call a man a power-whore, I am stating that he will do anything in order to obtain a certain level of power. Now lets say I call a woman a power-whore, what I am stating is that she will do anything in order to obtain a certain level of power. I am not saying that Belinda Stronach sleeps with random men in order to obtain power, but rather she will comprimise her apparent morals in order to obtain such power. It seems to me as though you understand what I am saying, but you are trying to paint anyone who thinks different than you with the same brush, that brush being that we are all ignorant and woman hating.

If I call you an attention whore right now, that isn't a sexist remark. The context in which the comment is made has to be looked at, as if you do not act in such a manner you will be stuck trying to argue defintions, and the meaning of words and getting no where. In the context no one was insulting Belinda because she was a woman, people were insulting her for the actions that she took

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@May 21 2005, 04:43 AM
The term power-whore has been used to describe both men and women for the same reason. If lets say I call a man a power-whore, I am stating that he will do anything in order to obtain a certain level of power. Now lets say I call a woman a power-whore, what I am stating is that she will do anything in order to obtain a certain level of power. I am not saying that Belinda Stronach sleeps with random men in order to obtain power, but rather she will comprimise her apparent morals in order to obtain such power. It seems to me as though you understand what I am saying, but you are trying to paint anyone who thinks different than you with the same brush, that brush being that we are all ignorant and woman hating.

If I call you an attention whore right now, that isn't a sexist remark. The context in which the comment is made has to be looked at, as if you do not act in such a manner you will be stuck trying to argue defintions, and the meaning of words and getting no where. In the context no one was insulting Belinda because she was a woman, people were insulting her for the actions that she took

It is sexist MMM. I don't care what your junior edition pocket dictionary says. Poll some women in Canada and see how they view the term. It is derogatory to women, and you would have to live in a cave in Afghanistan not to know that.

I'm sure when peope use it to describe men, they like the fact that it also demasculates.

No one who called her a "whore" or "slut" can tell me that they didn't know what the excepted meaning is and the specific insult it is to woman - and I'm also sure that is why they chose it. Choosing a derogatory word and then arguing semantics to try and make themselves look good is pretty lame.

[Resolute 14]

Worrying about people looking to get offended getting offended has never been a passtime of mine.

She is a power whore.

Period.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@May 21 2005, 09:04 AM

It is sexist MMM. I don't care what your junior edition pocket dictionary says. Poll some women in Canada and see how they view the term. It is derogatory to women, and you would have to live in a cave in Afghanistan not to know that.

I'm sure when peope use it to describe men, they like the fact that it also demasculates.

No one who called her a "whore" or "slut" can tell me that they didn't know what the excepted meaning is and the specific insult it is to woman - and I'm also sure that is why they chose it. Choosing a derogatory word and then arguing semantics to try and make themselves look good is pretty lame.

It can be a derogitory term towards women but in the context that the term has been used when describing Belinda Stronach it is an insult towards her and her alone. It is a way of not describing women, but rather describing the actions of a specific woman.

It has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman, but rather it has to do with the fact (or at least what I consider a fact) that she bailed on the party which she was elected under and as compensation recieved a very nice job in the caucas.

I have used that term to describe men, not to desmasculate them, but to describe them and their actions. No one has said she walks the street for money, or that she is a dirty VD carrying tramp. People have said that she recieved something in this case power in exchange, or while comprimising principles.

I know what the other meaning is, but at the same time you know damn well that isn't the message that was being conveyed. Everyone knows that. The term whore was used in conjunction with the term power which has different implications than the definition you are trying to argue. It seems to me as though you are looking for a fight to defend your political point of view (more left wing) than you are defending womens rights.

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
How so? Seriously, tell me in detail why my original posts had no point. I used words that had double meanings to point out how ridiculous it was to use them and then claim it means something else. You can't just say that someone has no point and then not make a case. That is a big cop out. You might as well not even respond at all.[/b]

Quite simply, if you read your own words, you will see that your "meaning" was quite evident...

I think Harper is gay.
I also think Harper likes to put roosters in his donkey.

In both cases, it was obvious the me exactly what you were communicating. I am sure you were quite clear on what I was communicating too. Thus your point is moot.

Originally posted by Shawnski+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Shawnski)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Grow some testicles and admit your "point" is moot. And I would be interested in the response to the changing of meaning of the word "marriage" as currently proposed by the Liberals vis-a-vis, your lack of respect to the "sensitivity to the historical meaning" of words.....[/b]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction
Again, you are totally changing the subject and it just shows that you have no legs to stand on in this conversation. I'm not talking about preserving definitions of words. I'm talking about sexist remarks. It has nothing to do with the definition of the words not changing. What in God's green Earth does the definition of marriage have to do with calling someone a whore or a slut? You say that I have no point yet you can't even stay on topic for more than 3 consecutive posts.

Not changing the subject what so ever. It is totally relevant here. I was pointing out that you are clinging to a historical meaning of a word in defense of your arguement, yet you are one whom has no qualms when changing of another word (i.e. marriage) meets your political position.

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction
So what now? You're going to single handedly change the word so that it reflects both genders equally? Whether you like it or not, the word is a lot stronger and more mean spirited when it is applied to a female. You can't change that just by ssaying that you don't like it.

Funny, just this morning I was watching Christie Blatchford on CBC Sunday saying that "... the gerderization of words is so 90's. People should get over it." (paraphrased) She went on to say she herself called Stronach a "political whore" in her articles, and stands by the comment. SHE said it. Female columnist. I dug around to find one of such articles, and here is one of them that may go even farther than using the word "whore".

"If this isn't politically slatternly behaviour, what on earth is?"

"Slatternly" MEANS "sluttish", there is no mistaking her usage. SHE is saying what many have said here.

She also made reference to a Brian Mulroney quote when Bryce Mackasey, a former Liberal cabinet minister and hanger-on, was named an ambassador:
"Let's face it, there's no whore, like an old whore." She commented that it is the actions of "selling oneself" that is being referenced.

Originally posted by Shawnski
Kinda sounds similar to the NHLPA only wanting "upward linkage".

<!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@
WTF!? Seriously, you will have explain that connection.[/quote]

I am getting used to having to explain things to you. I will type slowly so you can understand. The "upward linkage" reference is clearly in response to how you only want a certain result when it is to your advantage. I.E., You want us all to respect the historical meaning and political importance to the use of the words "whore" or "slut", but you for one don't respect the historical meaning and political importance of the use of the word "marriage".

FA, I have made myself clear in my combination of words, their context, and their meaning. If you have another word, or combination of words that I should have used to describe the political prostitution that Stonauch committed, I would be pleased to be enlighteded

<!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction
The only thing you have made clear is that you are sexist and have no tact or respect for women.[/quote]

That is laughable. I would have said the same thing if it was Peter Mackay that crossed the floor for a cabinet position and not Stronach.

M&M&M had it right. You are just a leftist leaning attention whore. I have no idea what gender you are. I don't care. It makes absolutely no difference to me whatsoever.

Have a nice day.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Shawnski@May 22 2005, 06:58 PM

Not changing the subject what so ever. It is totally relevant here. I was pointing out that you are clinging to a historical meaning of a word in defense of your arguement, yet you are one whom has no qualms when changing of another word (i.e. marriage) meets your political position.

First of all, I don't even know what the historical definition of the word is. For all I know, the defintion you gave could be more "historical". So for the last time, it is not about dictionary defintion. If you want, you can keep changing the subject to avoid answering though.

Secondly, and hopefully for the last time, what the dictionary says is secondary to what the word means to specific group of people. Now I'll ask you again; if you polled women in Canada and asked them if the words "whore" and "slut" carried a more degrading meaning when directed toward women, what kind of answer do you think you would get? Honestly now - no more semantic bullshinguard. It doesn't fool anybody. Even if you polled most men, I would be willing to bet that they would consider the words to be more specific to women.


And thirdly, I am not for or against changing the "definition" of the word marriage. If the meaning of the word changes because of societal influence, then I am fine with that, but I am not in favour of forcing a change in the meaning. The fact of the matter is, the meaning IS changing to a vast number of people in this country. The word "whore" has not been under the same societal change. (As if you didn't know that).

I am getting used to having to explain things to you. I will type slowly so you can understand. The "upward linkage" reference is clearly in response to how you only want a certain result when it is to your advantage. I.E., You want us all to respect the historical meaning and political importance to the use of the words "whore" or "slut", but you for one don't respect the historical meaning and political importance of the use of the word "marriage".

I know what upward linkage means, but that analogy is idiotic at best. I expalined several times why the marriage issue is totally different. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what else to say to you. The marriage issue isn't about word dictionary defintion any more than this is. Why do you keep bringing it up? It's a sure sign that you can't argue the other points if keep changing the subject.

M&M&M had it right. You are just a leftist leaning attention whore. I have no idea what gender you are. I don't care. It makes absolutely no difference to me whatsoever.

Have a nice day.

Oooh, big man. You're just right leaning tantrum slut then. And my dad can beat up your dad, and all that other childish crap that you're probably going to reply with.

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@May 22 2005, 01:42 PM
Oooh, big man. You're just right leaning tantrum slut then. And my dad can beat up your dad, and all that other childish crap that you're probably going to reply with.

Nope, I am done. My points are clear and concise. Ties into relevant and related arguments have been made and clarified. I will not go further into the gutter than we both already have. I still think you brought a knife to a gun fight on this one.

Instead, I am going to turn the tables somewhat. I am going to commend you. Although I do not in any way, shape, or form, agree with your viewpoint, you have one. I do not expect to ever agree with your personal political agendas. But you do have at least one, and likely more.

And you are involved. Be it debating here, or wherever else you are. You are voicing your preferences. More people should be doing so.

On this Victoria Day weekend, how can I possibly argue with that? All Canadians need to be more involved than they are.

That said, end of debate, end of this thread hijack....

... but MY Dad would STILL woop your Dad... <kidding>

[FlamesAddiction]

OK Shawnski, I appreciate that. Truce, and I'm sorry I got carried away with it. It's not as big of a deal as I was making it out to be.

[CaptainCrunch]

Come on, I want to see a dad fight, I think it would be a top selling DVD.