"Re said..." (1 Viewer)

[Ryan Wright]

All this because he made up a new word? I fail to see how making up a new word could invoke such harsh responses. Maybe some people are letting past judgement regarding the "pledge thing" get in the way of sound reasoning.

I'll tell you why: Because he is quick to take offense and believes the rest of us should walk on glass around him. Normally, I'd just find that type of person "annoying", but this guy takes it one step further. He, essentially, is suing for the right to not be offended.
"One nation under God." We can argue until we're blue in the face about whether public schoolchildren should be forced to recite this (or if they even are "forced" to recite it, or even coerced), but that's not what this is about. This is about one man's "right" not to be offended. "God" is offensive to him, so he sues. "He" or "She" is offensive to him, so he sues. What's next?
That is what makes him a moron. This whole idea that he has some "right" to not be offended. It's hogwash. Nobody has any such right. As I already said, I can't stand people like him. These are the same people who dress their infants in gender neutral clothing, then, when someone says, "Oh, isn't he a cutie?", they throw a fit. "SHE'S A GIRL!" For crying out loud, either dress the kid in pink so there is no question or be prepared to gently say, "Actually, she's a girl, but thank you for the compliment."
Being offended is a choice. It's one that you must make on a daily basis. I choose to not be offended every time an iffy situation comes up. I believe that most people are good people who are not trying to hurt my poor wittle feelings, and when the option to be offended presents itself, I say, "Hey, he's just being nice. He didn't mean anything by it. Let it be." And I do. Why do so many of you get your panties all bunched up over nothing? If someone did not mean to offend you, for crying out loud, just let it go.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Max Knight wrote:

Quote:

How should M(r)s. Gray complete this question to her second-grade class?
"Does everybody have _______ pencils with ________ today?"
"The Post Office sent me the wrong package. I have to call _______ up and tell _______ to pick it up."
How would the average English-speaker really fill in the blanks? And, what makes them "wrong" if they don't fill them in a way approved by you?

 

[JohnAD]

"One nation under God." We can argue until we're blue in the face about whether public schoolchildren should be forced to recite this (or if they even are "forced" to recite it, or even coerced), but that's not what this is about.

That is precisely what this is about. The freedoms that the Constitution protect apply to everyone, not just the majority. The government does not have the right to force people to believe in a certain way, or to say that citizenship is reserved for those who believe in a certain religion.

John.

 

[TimDoss]

Here is what I don't understand, John: one of our biggest problems in our society is people that
can't look away when they're offended. Here you are,
in the first couple of posts, offended by this person being
called names and made fun of. Look away. Don't continue reading it. No, instead you have to try to oppress
everyone else from expressing their opinions on the matter.
Whether that opinion is expressed by making fun, or name calling, or stating facts, it doesn't matter, it's opinion.
Actually you chose to resort to the same tactics and call names back, saying it's "childish".
This is the reason that television, movies, whatever, get censored, because you won't practice your birth given right to
turn the damn channel. In a thread that is offending you
it's called the "back" button.
Now, to join in on the childish behavior, I think this guy is a frickin' moron and the media needs to stop giving him
an open forum to express his assanine ideas. Let him fade away as quickly as possible.
Now was I supposed to put a smiley somewhere in there???
Here...

 

[JohnAD]

Tim:

So rather than trying to have an intelligent discussion, a few people like yourself have to resort to ad hominems. I hate to break this to you, but opinions are not some 'holy writ'. Oh, and I would hardly say I was 'oppressing' anyone, including yourself.

Might I suggest that you follow your own advice, and click the 'back' button if my post offends you?

John.

 

[Trey Fletcher]

That is precisely what this is about. The freedoms that the Constitution protect apply to everyone, not just the majority. The government does not have the right to force people to believe in a certain way, or to say that citizenship is reserved for those who believe in a certain religion.

That's not at all what this is about, sir. Check the thread title if you must, but you've taken Ryan's comments entirely out of context. The discussion is not about Newdon's case regarding the pledge, as that is out of bounds for the forum. The topic is what many condsider (myself included) to be bullshit attention seeking, and moronic attempts at legislating language.

 

[D. Scott MacDonald]

That's not at all what this is about, sir. Check the thread title if you must

Correct! I actually agree with the pledge ruling, but I think all of this "re" stuff is absolute bullshit (I articulated my reasons in a previous post). An intelligent person can separate the issues.

 

[Ryan Wright]

.

There you have it.
I personally will not change my style of writing. Correct English still uses "he". While it is possible to re-word sentences in order to be politically correct, I have never nor will I ever subscribe to P.C. bullshit. Only an irrational nutcase could honestly claim that using "he" in a gender neutral context is "sexist". It is the offended nutcase who makes it sexist by his illogical interpretation of the English language. I say to that nutcase (not directed at anyone here!): Go ahead, be offended, but realize that you have done so by choice and are merely wasting brain cells through stress so that you may die sooner and, God willing, rid us all of your anti-social, antagonistic behavior.
There. I'm done now. Man, I love this forum...

 

[MickeS]

"If you don't like it, just leave!"
Personally, I don't have a problem with using "they", but I try not to use "he" or "she", because it conveys an image to the listener that I do not always want to give them. "They" is a bit awkward to use in most cases, but at least it's not gender specific, which sometimes can be very important (in polls or tests for example).
To me it doesn't have to do with "political correctness", but precision in the language. I'm surprised a word like this wasn't created long ago.
By the way, Ryan, do you feel it would be incorrect to replace the word "he" and "his" in your examples with "she" or "hers"?
/Mike

 

[Ryan Wright]

That's not at all what this is about, sir. Check the thread title if you must, but you've taken Ryan's comments entirely out of context.

Thanks Trey. You saved me from having to explain myself and drag this thread further into no-no territory.

 

[cafink]

By the way, Ryan, do you feel it would be incorrect to replace the word "he" and "his" in your examples with "she" or "hers"?

I hope Ryan doesn't feel I'm stepping on his toes here by responding, but…

Yes, using "she" and "hers" instead of "he" and "his" would be incorrect. Because we don't know the gender of the child or the worker or the passenger, the masculine pronoun is used. This issue is NOT how Ryan or I or anyone else feels about it — it is an established RULE of the English language.

 

[MickeS]

Makes sense.
So, since we don't know the gender, why would it be so bad to have a word that was gender neutral, to remove all doubt that we are talking about a non-gender specific person?

If I say "A person walks across the street. Halfway across, he stops to pick up a piece of paper.", I can honestly say that it doesn't seem gender neutral, even if that's what I want it to be, insted I have to use either "person" again or some convoluted passive form or something to make it gender neutral. I just think it would be really convenient.

/Mike

 

[DennisHP]

For all those who think it's a good idea to use re, ris or whatever, go ahead. No one will know what the hell you're talking about though.

 

[Ryan Wright]

If I say "A person walks across the street. Halfway across, he stops to pick up a piece of paper.", I can honestly say that it doesn't seem gender neutral

That's probably because you're referring to someone initiating an action in which you should know the gender of said person, considering you saw him cross the street. Try this one: "If someone were to cross that street, he should pick up that piece of paper." Now the crossing of the street has become hypothetical and it is obvious that gender is unknown.
Of course, your statement is still gender unknown, it's just a little awkward because you should know the gender of the person in question.
Other languages have gender neutral singular pronouns. English doesn't. Sure, we could create one, but most of us like our language the way it is and the push to change is for the wrong reasons.

 

[cafink]

So, since we don't know the gender, why would it be so bad to have a word that was gender neutral, to remove all doubt that we are talking about a non-gender specific person?

Just for the record, I don't think it would be a bad thing in and of itself. My post on the first page of this thread says as much.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Mr. Newdow (sic?) is indeed an evil nutcase.

His daughter, who he says is "hurt", is from what I've heard wanted no part in this case. In fact, she's Christian now. He used her name in an entirely fantasized case, which should be made null and void.

That being said, anyone who uses their own children for exploitation and false claims do not need to tell us what we should do to be sensitive to others.

Besides, why should a patient care if someone refers to their doctor (wait...physician...no, health care attendant...) incorrectly?

 

[MickeS]

Yeah, I agree that changing for the sake of PC-ness would be insane, but the change itself would be good, IMO. Oh well.

 

[Seth Paxton]

The funniest thing is that changing the language in this situation TOTALLY DEFEATS THE POINT.
The problem with he/she ISN'T the words. There is nothing wrong with saying about your female doctor "She said..."
If the doctor is not taken seriously because she is a woman, then the word is not at issue here, and hiding the gender only promotes such prejudice.
And in regards to the use of "he" in general terms for an unknown gender, the word already serves the purpose of "re". It has double duty as both masculine and generic, so there is no need for "re" to take it's place.
Again, if people take the generic usage so literally that they are offended, that is a social issue, not one of grammar.
So the guy is busying trying to fix a problem that either doesn't exist or has nothing to do with grammar.
I would say that's not very bright.
Maybe his next solution for a problem will be to take swear words out of the language so that people will be forced to be nicer to each other. :rolleyes

 

[Henry Carmona]

Patrick and Seth,

EXCELLENT points!!!

 

[Todd Hochard]

Am I going to have to start doing a crotch-grab to know who I'm dealing with? I don't really want to have to do this!