Cadman was bribed by Harper but refused.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Shawnski+May 20 2005, 11:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Shawnski @ May 20 2005, 11:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@May 20 2005, 05:33 PM
Wow, synonyms are fun!

Synonyms do not equate to definitions, Addiction.

Feel free to debate on this without having nihil ad rem. [/b][/quote]
I am debating it. You're just not answering my points.

Just because a word has a different (if rare) alternate definition, it doen't make it accpetable. The intent is what is important and anyone who has an ounce of tact and intelligence knows what calling a woman a whore and a slut means.

[Flame On]

I don't really mind in a PC kind of way her being called a whore I just don't think it's accurate. I think it's a bit foolish and doesn't surprise me coming from those that support a party with problems in it's tolerance perceptions.
I think she left because of a leader that's foolish and because she's a moderate in the party who was being kept on the outside. A whore afterall offers a service and gets something in return, payment. What's her payoff? There's no gaurantee her government will stay in. There's no Guarantee the Liberals will reward her down the road. There's about as much gaurantee as there was with the Cons, but they were keeping this bright industry leader on the outside like idiots cause they want their value voting front and center. So why shouldn't she jump the stinking ship?! Shrewd not slut.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard+May 20 2005, 11:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mean Mr. Mustard @ May 20 2005, 11:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

The word "whore" doesn't carry the same meaning when you refer it to a man. Just like the "n" word doesn;t carry the same meaning if you call a white person it.

Quit pretemding that calling a woman a "whore" is not a sexual reference. You're smarter than that.

Oh so now you are the one promoting a double standard between men and women, while the derogitory folks are the ones who are treating everyone on a level playing field. What about Dar Hethrington, she is a woman, and yet you didn't seem to object to people calling her a publicity whore? [/b][/quote]
If you're saying that I choose my battles on this message board, then you are correct. Everyone does. Not defending Dar Heatherington (who is a criminal) has nothing to do with anything, but keep trying.

And btw, I have nothing agaisnt promoting double standards when it comes to defending women against derogatory statements.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

The point remains that you didn't defend anyone until it came time that you were defending your political beliefs which are unrelated to the subject. It seems to me that you are defending your politcal party more than you are defending womens (and human I guess) rights.

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@May 20 2005, 05:49 PM
It's only hypocritical if those who are arguing against calling Stronach a "whore" is defending rap music that objectifies women.

So you are going to start a thread denouncing hip-hop and rap? Going to petition the government to ban lyrics with such verbage?

No you won't. Neither will I. We both would, I am sure, agree that it is deplorable, but we will do nothing about it. Our silence (i.e. quiet "defense") on it is far more deplorable, and hypocritical, than anything said in these threads.

I have been repulsed by many of the songs created within these genres, not just for the "how" references. Ironically, they all fall within generally accepted "freedom of speech" situations, yet if the words were Jew (I am not one) or something similar, hell and brimstone would rain from

Our society has so many double standards it is not even funny.

Again, another circular arguement in the making.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@May 20 2005, 04:33 PM
Give me a break you guys. Those who are calling Stronach a slut and whore know what they are implying. They chose those words to insult her based on the fact she is a woman.

Anyone think Stronach would have become such a star in the political world if she were a man? Her gender has been used to her advantage from the moment she stepped into the political circus.

Dont be crying if some apparently use her gender to cast her in a negative light after she has used it so well to her benefit.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Shawnski@May 21 2005, 12:14 AM

So you are going to start a thread denouncing hip-hop and rap? Going to petition the government to ban lyrics with such verbage?

No, I won't - and I didn't start this thread either. Nor will I petition the government on this issue.

I actually don't have that much of a problem with conservatives saying these things. The main issue I have is with those who refuse to admit what they are really implying by saying it. It is absurd to think that grown men do not know that calling a woman a whore or a slut has a specific meaning to women that is not the same to men.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@May 21 2005, 12:13 AM
The point remains that you didn't defend anyone until it came time that you were defending your political beliefs which are unrelated to the subject. It seems to me that you are defending your politcal party more than you are defending womens (and human I guess) rights.

First of all, I don't have a political party. I don't support any particular party. I voted in 3 federal elections and voted once for the National Party, once for the PC, and once for the Liberal party. I voted Liberal in one provincial election and NDP in another. I don't die hard with any of them. I look at what I think my riding, province, and country need at the time and vote accordingly.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with picking and choosing battles. To be honest, I think calling Heathering a whore is wrong too. The difference is, right now I have time to debate it.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

In the situation it doesn't have the same meaning. I am serious when I say this, as no one has suggested that she had sexual relations with Paul Martin, but rather that she acted putting her own personal agenda which involves the obtaining of power ahead of what many would consider her morals and commitments. You can read it whatever way you want, but don't go trying to tell me what I meant by my comments.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@May 20 2005, 05:26 PM
In the situation it doesn't have the same meaning. I am serious when I say this, as no one has suggested that she had sexual relations with Paul Martin, but rather that she acted putting her own personal agenda which involves the obtaining of power ahead of what many would consider her morals and commitments. You can read it whatever way you want, but don't go trying to tell me what I meant by my comments.

Sigh, no she didn't she put her morals first, she got out of a political party she no longer believed reflected her opinions then the cons themselves all jumped on her that she didn't belong so how's that immoral?

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@May 20 2005, 06:04 PM
I am debating it. You're just not answering my points.

"Nihil ad rem" means you "have no point".

The two words I chose are completely clear... "power slut". The second has a clear meaning when combined with the first. Did you think I was referring to Linda Lovelace?

The intent is what is important and anyone who has an ounce of tact and intelligence knows what calling a woman a whore and a slut means.

Come on Addition, my intent has been made very, very clear.

But seems like you are really arguing that words should not change meaning. The original meanings of "whore" and "slut" are very, very, clear, and very derogatory to women.

So if you are in support of keeping the meaning of words as they have historically been implemented, then you should be in support that "marriage" remains the "union of a man and women", instead of being altered to include gays now.... right?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

That is what she said she did yes, but there are different viewpoints as to what her real motives for switching parties are, especially given the time that it occured, and the alligations which are flying about right now.

Furthermore her constituants voted for the conservatives, and they should get what they voted for, at least in my view. If my MP decided that she wanted to change I would be very upset, as the party which was voted for would no longer be the party which was representing the constituancy. It isn't her view that should be expressed it is the view of the people that she serves, and it doesn't seem to me like she did that by changing parties. I couldn't give a damn about her personal views.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Shawnski+May 21 2005, 12:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Shawnski @ May 21 2005, 12:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@May 20 2005, 06:04 PM
I am debating it. You're just not answering my points.

"Nihil ad rem" means you "have no point".

The two words I chose are completely clear... "power slut". The second has a clear meaning when combined with the first. Did you think I was referring to Linda Lovelace?

The intent is what is important and anyone who has an ounce of tact and intelligence knows what calling a woman a whore and a slut means.

Come on Addition, my intent has been made very, very clear.

But seems like you are really arguing that words should not change meaning. The original meanings of "whore" and "slut" are very, very, clear, and very derogatory to women.

So if you are not in support of keeping the meaning of words as they have historically been implemented, then you should be in support that "marriage" remains the "union of a man and women", instead of being altered to include gays now.... right? [/b][/quote]
No, there were points there. I suppose they are just over your head. C'est la vie.

It has nothing to do with believing or not believing that "words should not change meanings". It has to do with being sensitive to the historical meaning of a derogatory word applied to a previously oppressed group of people.

Like in my example with the word gay. Even though the word has a duel defintion, we KNOW what it implies in this day of age. Using "whore" or "slut", and then claiming to be using the more rare and less accpeted defintion is not fooling anyone.

[browna]

Posted a link to a newsletter she wrote and arrived at her constituents today, in one of the other threads.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/index.php?sho...ic=11229&st=250

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@May 20 2005, 05:35 PM
That is what she said she did yes, but there are different viewpoints as to what her real motives for switching parties are, especially given the time that it occured, and the alligations which are flying about right now.

Furthermore her constituants voted for the conservatives, and they should get what they voted for, at least in my view. If my MP decided that she wanted to change I would be very upset, as the party which was voted for would no longer be the party which was representing the constituancy. It isn't her view that should be expressed it is the view of the people that she serves, and it doesn't seem to me like she did that by changing parties. I couldn't give a damn about her personal views.

Well if it can be argued as to her intentions it can also be argued as to her ridings intentions. Perhaps her riding; an Ontarian conservative is probably the same as a western liberal, didn't agree to allying with seperatists, or to the; at the time, clogging up of parliament so that no work could be done for those same constiuents or any other. Maybe they didn't want another election which would perhaps effect he economy. Maybe they're progressive conservatives who want fiscal responsibility; and no one here argues a bit of that is needed, but want gay marriage etc etc. (not to turn this into a homo hugger debate )

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@May 20 2005, 06:45 PM
No, there were points there. I suppose they are just over your head. C'est la vie.

And your singular point, reply, or whatever it is, is like most debates within Question Period in the House of Commons; it is STILL "Nihil ad rem".

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.....

It has nothing to do with believing or not believing that "words should not change meanings". It has to do with being sensitive to the historical meaning of a derogatory word applied to a previously oppressed group of people.

So these derogatory words should not change to reflect both genders instead of just women. We should respect the sensitivity of a word of the "historical meaning" to "oppressed" groups only.

Kinda sounds similar to the NHLPA only wanting "upward linkage".

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.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Shawnski@May 21 2005, 01:29 AM

And your singular point, reply, or whatever it is, is like most debates within Question Period in the House of Commons; it is STILL "Nihil ad rem".

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.

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.....

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.

So these derogatory words should not change to reflect both genders instead of just women. We should respect the sensitivity of a word of the "historical meaning" to "oppressed" groups only.

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.

Kinda sounds similar to the NHLPA only wanting "upward linkage".

WTF!? Seriously, you will have explain that connection.

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

The only thing you have made clear is that you are sexist and have no tact or respect for women.

[Flame On]

If you have another word, or combination of words that I should have used to describe the political prostitution that Stonauch committed,

Um except that she didn't do that. She made an intelligent choice whilst at the same time sticking to her principles which lead her away from the red necks that were prostituting themselves with a seperatist group or otherwise whoring themselves around in any way they could to try to get a vote. Course they couldn't even do that right.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

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.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally posted by Flame On@May 20 2005, 09:09 PM

Um except that she didn't do that. She made an intelligent choice whilst at the same time sticking to her principles which lead her away from the red necks that were prostituting themselves with a seperatist group or otherwise whoring themselves around in any way they could to try to get a vote. Course they couldn't even do that right.

I am just waiting on FlamesAddiction to bash you for your use of the term whoring, and also red-neck. But that is one of the most condecending posts I have ever read on these boards. Are you trying to emply that people who are intelligent can not be conservative, because I think that is what you are trying to get at but I am not sure. It isn't as though Liberals have a monopoly on individuals who are intelligent.