Opinion

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

At what point does opinion, especially uninformed opinion, become too much when debating facts. By facts I mean the following, shown through examples; physical facts, such as the sky is blue, or legal fact, here in America, we have the right to free religion (constitutionally).

Now, if you say it's your opinion that a yamaka should not be worn in any building, that's fine.

Read the following dialogue, as it pertains to the subject at hand (you can replace yamaka with a cross, kufi, etc.).

Character 1: A Jew has the right to wear a yamaka in the workplace and school because it is a religous symbol of great signifigance, and serves no threat to any of those around them.

Character 2: It does not matter, if the rule says no hats, then no one should wear a hat.

Character 1: However, it is not simply a hat, and does not even cover the whole head, so it's not even a real hat.

Character 2: if the rule says no hats, no hats.

Character 1: But there is an even higher rule that supercedes that rule.

Character 2: The rule says no hats, so there are no hats allowed.

Character 1: but there is a rule higher than that rule.

Character 1: It's my opinion, and if it was up to me they would not be wearing the hat. What do I care, I'm not a Jew.

Character 1(thought): You're a slack jawed yocal.

― mantilla, Monday, 10 April 2006 22:24 (twenty years ago)

try being coherent, next time.

― Special Agent Gene Krupa (orion), Monday, 10 April 2006 22:25 (twenty years ago)

what's a yamaka?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 10 April 2006 22:25 (twenty years ago)

also, lirn to spel wurdz.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 April 2006 22:26 (twenty years ago)

you assign too much signifigance to speling, shakey, you yocal

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 10 April 2006 22:27 (twenty years ago)

if you have nothing else to comment on than my spelling then please shut the fuck up. geez!

― mantilla, Monday, 10 April 2006 22:27 (twenty years ago)

http://cache.tias.com/stores/ccm/pictures/yamcsd.jpg

― phil d. (Phil D.), Monday, 10 April 2006 22:30 (twenty years ago)

no, we would also like to comment on your ability to keep your characters straight

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 10 April 2006 22:32 (twenty years ago)

what's a yamaka?

A motorcycle. A Jewish motorcycle.

― Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 10 April 2006 22:33 (twenty years ago)

yocal = yorthern california

― jodias of sunhillow (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 10 April 2006 22:34 (twenty years ago)

In college one of my professors encouraged creative spelling, or even completely random spelling. He pointed out that many Medieval writers used a variety of spellings for their own names.

Sure a misspelling or a typo looks rough, but on the other hand attention to spelling rules is an easy way to make yourself seem smart when you have nothing else to contribute.

― WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot (unclejessjess), Monday, 10 April 2006 22:35 (twenty years ago)

Shut up, Jesse.

― Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 10 April 2006 22:36 (twenty years ago)

He pointed out that many Medieval writers used a variety of spellings for their own names.

How is this admirable? It's the reason English is such a fucked up mess! Well, that and the Norman invasion.

― Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 10 April 2006 22:37 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, Character 1 is sort of all over the place at the end of that little exercise.

― phil d. (Phil D.), Monday, 10 April 2006 22:37 (twenty years ago)

http://www.hungry-girl.com/sectionimg/724yogurt4.jpg

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 10 April 2006 22:37 (twenty years ago)

(you can replace yamaka with a cross, kufi, etc.).

Character 1: A Jew has the right to wear a cross in the workplace and school because it is a religous symbol of great signifigance, and serves no threat to any of those around them.

Character 2: It does not matter, if the rule says no crosss, then no one should wear a cross.

Character 1: However, it is not simply a cross, and does not even cover the whole head, so it's not even a real cross.

Character 2: if the rule says no crosss, no crosss.

Character 1: But there is an even higher rule that supercedes that rule.

Character 2: The rule says no crosses, so there are no crosses allowed.

Character 1: but there is a rule higher than that rule.

Character 1: It's my opinion, and if it was up to me they would not be wearing the cross. What do I care, I'm not a Jew.

Character 1(thought): You're a slack jawed yocal.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Monday, 10 April 2006 22:38 (twenty years ago)

Doesn't work.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Monday, 10 April 2006 22:39 (twenty years ago)

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/25/nixon.tapes/calif.yorba.linda.jpg

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 10 April 2006 22:39 (twenty years ago)

A Jew has the right to wear a cross in the workplace

Somehow I don't think this would ever come up.

― Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 10 April 2006 22:40 (twenty years ago)

That's what I thought.

I tried kufi as well and that made no sense.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Monday, 10 April 2006 22:41 (twenty years ago)

you got that wrong, Onimo. try it this way...

Character 1: A Jew has the right to wear a cross, kufi, etc. in the workplace and school because it is a religous symbol of great signifigance, and serves no threat to any of those around them.

Character 2: It does not matter, if the rule says no cross, kufi, etc., then no one should wear a cross, kufi, etc.

Character 1: However, it is not simply a cross, kufi, etc., and does not even cover the whole head, so it's not even a real cross, kufi, etc.

Character 2: if the rule says no cross, kufi, etc., no cross, kufi, etc.

Character 1: But there is an even higher rule that supercedes that rule.

Character 2: The rule says no crosses, kufis, etc., so there are no a crosses, kufis, etc. allowed.

Character 1: but there is a rule higher than that rule.

Character 1: It's my opinion, and if it was up to me they would not be wearing the cross, kufi, etc. What do I care, I'm not a Jew.

Character 1(thought): You're a slack jawed yocal.

Do you see?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 10 April 2006 22:43 (twenty years ago)

I don't know what fallosentrick means but NO GIRLS

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 10 April 2006 22:48 (twenty years ago)

He pointed out that many Medieval writers used a variety of spellings for their own names.

How is this admirable? It's the reason English is such a fucked up mess! Well, that and the Norman invasion.

Because in other departments (other than English) the professors would take spelling (and punctuation grammar) into consideration when grading. In the English dept they were concerned with strong content, not quantifiable piddliness like spelling. The context is important I guess.

Of course if spelling etc seriously affected the meaning of your text then it became an issue (or if you were just obviously typo-ing all over because you were writing your paper while watching MTV on the 3rd day of a coke-binge).

― WhiskyTangoPhoxTrout, Monday, 10 April 2006 23:34 (twenty years ago)

Whatever. That's like the cousin I had in the elementary school that taught "alternate spelling." It does no one any service to misspell things, except perhaps the lazy writer with a loose grasp of English. I don't see any real argument for ignoring spelling and grammar rules, unless it's for some special stylistic reason, in which case you have to know the rules to break them. Telling people it's no big deal to be flagrantly wrong is just bad education.

― Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 10 April 2006 23:48 (twenty years ago)

not quantifiable piddliness like spelling

quantifiable = piddly? This is the talk of a foolish person. You are not a foolish person.

― Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 10 April 2006 23:56 (twenty years ago)

you had a cousin in elementary school that taught alternative spelling?

― jed_ (jed), Monday, 10 April 2006 23:58 (twenty years ago)

I did.

"Sirkle."

― Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 10 April 2006 23:59 (twenty years ago)

They were trying to change English from the bottom up, I guess, without thinking that gainful employment comes from the top down.

― Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Tuesday, 11 April 2006 00:01 (twenty years ago)

in england a place of business has to show that the offending practice makes it not only impossible to do that job but any other suitable job at that business. so for instance, a man with a beard working on the assembly line at a chocolate factory might be told his beard presents health hazards to both himself and the company's customers, but he couldn't be fired unless the company could show there was no other suitable or available job at the plant for him to do. that's not opinion, that's law.

― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 11 April 2006 00:03 (twenty years ago)

There's no law anywhere against hiring someone else.

― Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Tuesday, 11 April 2006 00:05 (twenty years ago)

that's crazy talk.

― jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 11 April 2006 00:11 (twenty years ago)

in britain there is

― jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 11 April 2006 00:12 (twenty years ago)

actually there is, if there's a pattern of bearded men not making it in (in england). in the US all the business has to do is show that their requirements are materially relevant to performing the job applied for - but they do have to show that.

xpost

― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 11 April 2006 00:12 (twenty years ago)

big famous case for this in the US was brought by two black applicants to the D.C. police force who failed the "pen and paper" exam despite being otherwise qualified. stats showed that blacks failed at a higher rate than whites. therefore, said the two policemen, the test is racially discriminatory. "but hell" says the D.C. police force, "we give the same test to EVERYBODY - how can that be discriminatory?" cue rolling drums and major confrontation until it was found in the trial that some of the biggest honchos on the force, the old guard, had never even taken a pen and paper test - so the test could not, by definition, be relevant to performing their duties well

― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 11 April 2006 00:15 (twenty years ago)

i.e. "well we forbid ALL students from wearing headscarves!"

― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 11 April 2006 00:16 (twenty years ago)

"the law, in its infinite wisdom, forbids both rich and poor from sleeping under bridges" - anatole france

― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 11 April 2006 00:17 (twenty years ago)

in the US, the standard i describe above only applies to employment law. if it applied to everything else it would be like "wo, our entire social structure is discriminatory" (i.e. HOUSING)

― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 11 April 2006 00:19 (twenty years ago)

i.e. "well we forbid ALL students from wearing headscarves!"

So the thread comes back around to (kind of) its topic.

My point, though, was not about education opportunities, which should be accounted for. Your example of the policemen not having anything to do with written literacy beyond its basic level is true. But I think it's negligent for a school to teach children to spell incorrectly for whatever reason, or for a college professor to make some wacky point by not editing his students' papers. (Come to think of it, maybe that is the point. Editing is hard.)

― Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Tuesday, 11 April 2006 00:22 (twenty years ago)

i'm the best and you're not
no, i'm the best and you're not
no, i'm the best and you're not
it's all a matter of opinion
No it's not

I'm gallus and you're not
no, I'm gallus and you're not
no, I'm gallus and you're not
it's all a matter of opinion
No it's not

you're a ned and i'm not
no, you're a ned and i'm not
no, you're a ned and i'm not
it's all a matter of opinion
No it's not

― jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 11 April 2006 00:25 (twenty years ago)

is that the yummy fur, jed_?

― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 11 April 2006 00:27 (twenty years ago)

haha, it could be! it's something a friend of mine used to sing to me.

― jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 11 April 2006 00:30 (twenty years ago)

sometimes opinions seem like drunken one night stands/shags. ask me again in the morning.

― nicky lo-fi (nicky lo-fi), Tuesday, 11 April 2006 05:56 (twenty years ago)

sometimes opinions seem like loveless 30 year-old marriages. oh yes, that has always been...

― nicky lo-fi (nicky lo-fi), Tuesday, 11 April 2006 18:19 (twenty years ago)

that's just your opinion

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 11 April 2006 18:20 (twenty years ago)

three years pass...

I have an opinion. Please take note.

― bamcquern, Wednesday, 10 March 2010 20:41 (sixteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.