My sexual orientation is that of being male. My sexual preference is female. I prefer blond over brunet. Brown or light brown is OK. So my preference is blond women. I prefer petite women. Is that offensive to brunet women who are not petite? I was born male and continue to identify as male. It's the way I was made. How others are made - that's not for me to say. At some point people's tastes change. I used to like brunets until one broke my heart.

My whole point is not that others are offended by the language - but that we are being pressed into a mold as to how we identify a person or object. I drove a 72 Chevy Nova. "SHE" was a great car. Why "She"? IDK. IDC (I don't know, I don't care). Now I'm being pressed to call someone some cuneiform I don't fully understand. Sure it can be explained - but I don't care to hear the explanation. That person prefers to be with a particular gender - OK. That's their boat. They can float it in whatever pond they like. They can even name their boat and pond. To me it's a boat and a pond.

The whole point is political correctness. I've been called a WOP many times and it has never bothered me. I've been told the name Tony comes from immigrants coming to America WithOut Papers (WOP's) and sent To New York - or To NY (Tony). Heck! I can even laugh at that. But it's getting so we have to change the names of sports teams because calling them "RedSkins" is offensive. What about the Oregon Beavers? A female ball team. Why have they not gotten upset over the name? Is it because the Beaver is a furry woodland creature that gnaws down trees and makes dams? Or could it be offensive because some see the name Beaver as a reference to a part of female anatomy?

I gotta stop. I'm ranting again. Sorry.

 

“Body slamming” is poisoning the well. What I heard is “criticizing”, which is less charged than BS.

Depending on said persons intelligence and role in society, criticism based on an uninformed word choice is in fact justified. If you were to use “sexual preference” it would not on the face of it, be offensive.

However, I hold an SCJ candidate to a much higher standard. The difference in the phrases imply a significant difference in policy. A SCJ who cannot make the differentiation may not be qualified. And has earned the criticism.

Then there is a lot of criticism to follow.

I think it's over blown as even a criticism. Good people are confused about what's good, bad or ugly. What the heck is a gender-fluid orientation?

 

My sexual orientation is that of being male. My sexual preference is female. I prefer blond over brunet. Brown or light brown is OK. So my preference is blond women. I prefer petite women. Is that offensive to brunet women who are not petite? I was born male and continue to identify as male. It's the way I was made. How others are made - that's not for me to say. At some point people's tastes change. I used to like brunets until one broke my heart.

My whole point is not that others are offended by the language - but that we are being pressed into a mold as to how we identify a person or object. I drove a 72 Chevy Nova. "SHE" was a great car. Why "She"? IDK. IDC (I don't know, I don't care). Now I'm being pressed to call someone some cuneiform I don't fully understand. Sure it can be explained - but I don't care to hear the explanation. That person prefers to be with a particular gender - OK. That's their boat. They can float it in whatever pond they like. They can even name their boat and pond. To me it's a boat and a pond.

The whole point is political correctness. I've been called a WOP many times and it has never bothered me. I've been told the name Tony comes from immigrants coming to America WithOut Papers (WOP's) and sent To New York - or To NY (Tony). Heck! I can even laugh at that. But it's getting so we have to change the names of sports teams because calling them "RedSkins" is offensive. What about the Oregon Beavers? A female ball team. Why have they not gotten upset over the name? Is it because the Beaver is a furry woodland creature that gnaws down trees and makes dams? Or could it be offensive because some see the name Beaver as a reference to a part of female anatomy?

I gotta stop. I'm ranting again. Sorry.

As you once noted, I think we agree more than we realize.

I made a subtle distinction, which I feel has been overlooked. Insisting on phrases purely for political correctness has gone too far.

However, on the other hand distinctions in phrasing or words do serve a useful purpose, when used appropriately.

The difference between sexual preference and orientation deserves to be recognized when legislating or setting policy. This statement has two consequences. First, not using the phrase/words when appropriate leaves one open to justified criticism. Secondly, insisting on their use when not appropriate leaves one open to justified criticism. It cuts both ways.

 

I miss the old innocent days in which people didn't talk about sex... at all..

 

On an entertaining note:

 

It kinda reminds me of a bunch of kids trying to play a new game. They didn't take the time to read the rules or just didn't understand them if they did try. So they make them up as they go along. This entire Nuovo Quasi Intellectualism has a very childish slant to it by those too uneducated to understand it and too lazy to spend time trying to understand it.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ted-thousands-feet-above-los-angeles-n1243487

Someone in a jetpack was reportedly seen flying high above Los Angeles — again.

The apparent sighting, about 1:45 p.m. Wednesday, was noted by a China Airlines crew at an altitude of approximately 6,000 feet, the Federal Aviation Administration said in a statement.


The unidentified person was about seven miles northwest of the airport, according to the statement, which added that local law enforcement will investigate the report.

 

As you once noted, I think we agree more than we realize.

I made a subtle distinction, which I feel has been overlooked. Insisting on phrases purely for political correctness has gone too far.

However, on the other hand distinctions in phrasing or words do serve a useful purpose, when used appropriately.

The difference between sexual preference and orientation deserves to be recognized when legislating or setting policy. This statement has two consequences. First, not using the phrase/words when appropriate leaves one open to justified criticism. Secondly, insisting on their use when not appropriate leaves one open to justified criticism. It cuts both ways.

Which uses are appropriate and which ones are not?

 

My sexual orientation is that of being male.

Your gender/sex is male; your orientation is heterosexual.

My sexual preference is female.

This implies that if a female isn't available, you'd begrudgingly mate with a male. My preference is chocolate, but I'll eat vanilla ice cream if that's what I'm offered.

Still convinced that "sexual preference" is an accurate phrase?

 

Sorry I ever said a single thing. GEEZ!

 

Sorry I ever said a single thing. GEEZ!

When did you stop beating your wife?
Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

 

When did you stop beating your wife?
Have you stopped beating your wife?

"When did you stop beating your wife?" Didn't.
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" No. Haven't stopped. Sometimes, y'know, she just needs to be put in her place!

OK OK OK, just kidding. I love my wife; and I've never hit her in anger. Pillow fights, water fights - tickle fights; yeah, but that's all done with tons of laughter. Even in old age we still play together.

 

 

she just needs to be put in her place!

And that would be at the head of the table wearing a queenly crown?...

 

Which uses are appropriate and which ones are not?

All of them were appropriate. The English idiom is a live process. The differentiation of the phrases has changed over time. In only one case, a requirement to interpret the phrase is a necessity, as it is the final word!

Just pulling your chain a little bit to illustrate my point. Your examples were cherry picked to make your point. In doing so, you communicate a falsehood and deserved my argumentative reply!

Really, I’m beginning to find this tiresome, so I’m willing to state that you’re absolutely right and withdraw. Congratulations.

 

All of them were appropriate. The English idiom is a live process. The differentiation of the phrases has changed over time. In only one case, a requirement to interpret the phrase is a necessity, as it is the final word!

Just pulling your chain a little bit to illustrate my point. Your examples were cherry picked to make your point. In doing so, you communicate a falsehood and deserved my argumentative reply!

Really, I’m beginning to find this tiresome, so I’m willing to state that you’re absolutely right and withdraw. Congratulations.

I 100% agree that the senate questioning of the judge on this point communicated a cherry picked falsehood of intent and was a cheap shot.

 

"When did you stop beating your wife?" Didn't.
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" No. Haven't stopped. Sometimes, y'know, she just needs to be put in her place!

OK OK OK, just kidding. I love my wife; and I've never hit her in anger. Pillow fights, water fights - tickle fights; yeah, but that's all done with tons of laughter. Even in old age we still play together.

Wise man.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...ay-his-ex-wife-continued-to-plot-his-killing/

Baron Li, a sales manager at a Burien car dealership, said he was walking to his car to go to work on July 10 when an unknown assailant shot him 9 times from point-blank range in the parking lot of Li’s Bellevue apartment complex.

He spent a week at Seattle’s Harborview Medical Center and had to use a wheelchair for a month after he was discharged, Li said in a phone interview on Tuesday, the same day King County prosecutors charged his ex-wife and two teenage alleged accomplices with premeditated attempted first-degree murder.
...
Prosecutors say Li’s ex-wife, 30-year-old Shaerin Kelley of Mountlake Terrace, was actively plotting with one of her accomplices to “complete the job” and kill Li after their failed July attempt, according to charging papers.

9 times from point-blank range and lived? Obviously a time-travel causation violation was corrected.

 

9 times from point-blank range and lived? Obviously a time-travel causation violation was corrected.

Occam's Razor dictates that divine intervention is a more plausible explanation...

 

Occam's Razor dictates that divine intervention is a more plausible explanation...

Either that or someone was just plain a bad old shot!

Years ago I knew a man - featured on America's Most Wanted for killing his ex-wife. As I got to know him under an assumed name I found him to be just that sort of person - someone who would shoot someone just because they were having a bad day. He shot himself in the stomach. Thinking he would die - on his death bed he confessed. Survived. Then went to prison for the rest of his life. He was already 70 when I knew him. Come to find out he had been on the run for 14 years. Justice may be slow; but it usually comes full circle. - - - Shooting himself in the stomach couldn't have been any more "Point Blank". Yet he lived. Much to his dislight.