Jump to content

Bruce K

Club Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Personal Information

  • Biography
    Christian, husband, father, patriot, businessman, athlete, sports car enthusiast
  • Location
    Shelby Twp, Michigan
  • Interests
    Sports cars & track days, audio/video, classical/jazz music, weightlifting, politics
  • Occupation
    CEO, likeNU Cleaning Services
  • Se7en

Recent Profile Visitors

8,168 profile views
  1. NOTE - THESE SHIRTS HAVE BEEN SOLD, BUT THE BUYER IS EXPERIENCING DIFFICULTY WITH THE PAYMENT PROCESSOR. PLEASE CHECK BACK AGAIN THE WEEK OF APRIL 15TH, 2024 TO SEE IF THEY COME AVAILABLE AGAIN. Twelve carefully curated Caterham t-shirts for sale. With the exceptions of the cartoon Caterham imprint and the evolution of man designs (2 shirts), all are the best available, $25 premium shirts (the two exceptions mentioned are standard cotton shirts not offered with higher quality options). Except for the two aforementioned exceptions, most are cotton and synthetic blends (a few are very light, fully synthetic). Sizes for all are LARGE. Tags have been cut (I hate when they stick out). New condition. All shirts worn only about three times each (some fewer). Always washed in gentle cycle with cold water, mild detergent, fabric softener, no bleach (not even Oxy) and hung on hangars to dry. All imprints show no fading or wear, despite a couple washed-out photos. Stored in a temperature and humidity-controlled environment. No discernable wear evident in any of the shirts. I will take the collection back and refund any buyer who proves this contention incorrect. I could only include six images with this ad, so I will send images of the remaining six to any interested party. Please include your email in your response. A while ago I sold my Caterham and moved to a slightly larger and heavier lightweight - a Lola T70 replica, for which I have already assembled a shirt collection. I intend to keep the Lola and its ultimate performance, and it is a shame to have this great collection of curated shirts simply stored away. $100 plus careful shipping. Whoever pays the $100 plus shipping will also receive a freshly-washed, unfaded Caterham ballcap in perfect condition. This 13-item collection cost over $300 plus individual shipping. Thanks!
  2. Of course, not every dealership achieves the same level of organization and equipment within each marque, but having seen several Porsche and the only local Ferrari backrooms, my vote goes to Ferrari. I had collision work performed on my Alfa 4C at the Ferrari dealership. The mechanical area was cleaner than my kitchen, specialized hoists disappeared completely into the floor, and the toolboxes were the size of pickup trucks. Lighting was so bright and well-distributed, it felt like heaven (especially with all those 9,000 rpm v12's and v8's scattered about). Their paint booths were sufficiently antiseptic for brain surgery. And preparing a car for customer pickup involved a one-hour detailing process.
  3. @barbox & @Croc - good grief! I was only recommending the move because I BELIEVED THE CONTENT WAS SO IMPORTANT. I am from the old school, where caps were simply emphasis - I was not yelling at anyone, which should have been apparent from the nice things I was saying. I had received no response to my earlier recommendations, so I chose to emphasize the suggestion. My only intention was to have Croc's posts seen by as many members as possible. I thought that could be best effectuated by a move to a thread concerning suspension setup. Apparently, Croc covers this info repeatedly, rendering movement unnecessary, of which I was unaware. Accusations of hypocrisy - so over the top! IMO, way too much sensitivity on display here. I receive texts all the time, where senders left the caps lock on, and even some short emails. The caps were not associated with any particular request for expedition, and they have never offended me - never crossed my mind. Indeed, most of my subject post was complimentary to others, as noted above. To claim offense because I spoke my compliments with emphasis - really? This was no issue to pick a fight over. You should wait until I write something demeaning or controversial, instead of flattering.
  4. I was surprised to learn the following. Jem Marsh designed the car below in 1958, and began selling copies in 1959. It was an evolution of an earlier model he had been producing in very limited numbers. Does it remind you of anyone else's superlight, super-spartan, small-motored sports car which was first offered for sale in 1957? The Marcos sports car could be ordered with motors up to 1.172 CC. It is said that Jem March was unaware of Colin's new car, and this is possible because of pre-internet limited exposure. A few years later. Jem Marsh began producing his beautiful GT, first with a 4 cylinder motor, and finally with a Ford V6 (subject of the second image). With that car, his competition was the Jaguar XKE, and some period mags put the Marcos GT's performance on par with the XKE. The Marcos 750 (below) all the way up the GT were distinguished by lightweight wooden frames to which fiberglass was bonded (the marine plywood frames were completely sealed by fiberglass, to prevent rot). As a young man, I invested substantially (compared to my available resources) in a good-looking V6 GT, of which only about 149 were ever built. It needed paint and mechanical restoration. I bought all the parts, but during the rebuid the shop went bankrupt, and half my new parts went missing. Frustrated, I sold the project and never got to drive the completed car. it is one I wish I could have kept. PS - that is Jem March in the cockpit of the 750. He was tall for the period - 6' 4" in shoes!:
  5. @JohnCh, @Croc - this post is directed to the moderators. Besides the excellent current tire information, there are nearly two pages of a clinic on Super Seven alignment. IMO, THE TIRE PURCHASE AND ALIGNMENT POSTS SHOULD BE MOVED TO A THREAD WHERE MORE MEMBERS CAN LEARN FROM THEM. WHERE MEMBERS WOULD TURN IF THESE QUESTIONS AROSE. THIS IN GREAT INFO FOR ANYONE SEEKING TO ALIGN A SEVEN, WHICH OFTEN INCLUDES NEW TIRE PURCHASE.
  6. @Croc - Just letting you know that your interchanges with @Marek have been added to the Upgrade and Repair Manual in the chapter on Alignment. We are up to 200 pages of indexed, practical knowledge.
  7. @SENC - I agree with the value of behaving as a devil's advocate. However, I also believe it important to attempt to change minds, because I have personally experienced changes of opinion and behavior and degrees of belief. Unless we attempt to change minds, we are ceding defeat to those who believe opposite us. If our beliefs are, in our considered opinion, important, we need to persuade others to them. I know you are a man of considered opinion and belief, and capable of influencing others, so keep trying.
  8. A recent federal lawsuit filed by a Penn State university professor illustrates the racism endemic to DEI, and why it is beginning to be corralled nationwide (just became illegal in Utah, with many states considering similar legislation). The professor claims his civil rights were violated, per the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Epoch Times reported the following sworn testimony today: "After the murder of George Floyd in 2020, all Penn State faculty and staff were told to attend a “Conversation on Racial Climate” on Zoom. During the session, Alina Wong, an assistant vice provost for educational equity, “led the faculty in a breathing exercise,” De Piero’s complaint states, “in which she instructed the ‘White and non-Black people of color to hold it just a little longer—to feel the pain.’" On at least four other occasions in 2020 and 2021, the judge wrote, De Piero “was obligated to attend conferences or trainings that discussed racial issues in essentialist and deterministic terms—ascribing negative traits to white people or white teachers without exception and as flowing inevitably from their race.” One session involved a presentation about “White Language Supremacy.” Another included examples of ostensibly racist comments “where every hypothetical perpetrator was white,” the judge continued. The ruling noted De Piero’s claim that he was subject to “race-based theories condemning white people for no other reason than they spoke or were simply present while being ‘white,’” and that his supervisor “spoke of race conscious grading” and accused white faculty of unwittingly reproducing “racist discourses and practices” in the classroom. Once, faculty members even had to watch a training video titled “White Teachers Are a Problem.” In 2021, De Piero told an administrator that he felt harassed and singled out because of his race and asked that anti-racism training sessions be stopped. He filed a report with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. He also filed a bias report with Penn State’s affirmative-action office. A staffer there allegedly told him, “There is a problem with the white race,” and urged him to keep attending anti-racism workshops. In ruling that these and other allegations “plausibly amount to ‘pervasive’ harassment,” Judge Beetlestone did not necessarily conclude that everything happened just as De Piero claims. But if events did happen that way, she reasoned, then Penn State is “plausibly” guilty of creating a hostile climate. When I asked Penn State for comment on the factual accuracy of De Piero’s complaint, a spokesperson replied that the university does not comment on ongoing litigation."
  9. @SENC & @barbox - I am following your discussion with enjoyment. As with most previous conversatons on this thread, participants are reasonable, educated adults who are diving deep for their best arguments, and their best diction with which to express them. Accommodations are being reached, and most participants are learning about, and improving, themselves. For these reasons, I continue to suggest that this thread title be changed to "Settling Disputes" or "Ongoing Arguments", or some other title that more correctly suits its developing purpose. I have an overview: IMO most reasonably educated people in our country are not racist, and only rarely cogitate the subject independently. When they do, it is usually because the subject was raised on the internet or on TV, as racism is often charged on liberal news sources, and denied on conservative ones (but sometimes the reverse, as with race restrictions regarding college admissions). However, I also firmly believe people notice race all the time, and I believe, in many to most cases, people are most comfortable around individuals of their own race. This is not racism - it is ethnocentrism, which is a sort of sociological reflex. It is not an evil or amoral reaction, as opposed to overt acts of racism. It is a measure of tribal comfort. This reflex, too, may ultimately disappear as races continue to interbreed and share DNA. Indeed ethnocentrism may already be attenuating or effectively disappearing among Gen Zers. Of course, I am not denying the existence of racism. Prison populations generally divide along racial lines. It is easy to find evidence of restricted racist enclaves like neo-nazis and Black, Irish, Italian, Mexican and Russian criminal gangs, including just some of the most notorious. But, IMO, extrapolating the racist ideologies of these groups to the general population is a mistake. I believe most evidences of overt racism have disappeared, or are just waiting for an applicable law to smite them. I also believe racism receives much undeserved attention, because the issue generates news, funding and votes. Concerning the crucial subject of language: I agree with SENC that the meaning of words continues to evolve. That is why dictionaries publish new editions, often annually (I'll bet Wiktionary changes daily). But I also disagree with SENC, in that most words don't change meaning often, and those that do are usually by slight nuance. Only a small number change radically, usually via adoption into slang, hip-hop, rap or other sub-cultures, and usually with a broadened or different meaning. This is why language is so effective - ordinary people can effectively communicate their ideas because most words are well-understood. That makes management of discussion much easier - only a few words, like racism, need to be defined before or as discussion deepens (word etymology has been a study of mine for many years. During that time, I have researched the etymology of countless thousands of words, and noted differences between archaic, British, early 20th century, and geographical or cultural dialect and other usages. ATTACHED is a published short story I wrote about my Porsche 935, but written in the style of Edgar Allen Poe. Nearly one word in every sentence required etymological research. According to feedback, it is an enjoyable read. Note the words that have gone out of vogue since the mid 19th century epoch of Poe:) 'The Pit and the Porsche (for Halloween) REVISED 11-5-23.pdf
  10. @barbox - our discussions have certainly mutated, following lots of agreement on central issues. The areas we are now exploring reminds me of metaphysics or sociology or philosophy classes. Again, I applaud Barbox and Senc thanks for your thoroughly contemplated responses. I'm going to copy your complete statements, plus my rejoinders in red, and then my new responses in green: I think I see where you're coming from here. My point with "But if I feel offended, even if that feeling is unjustified or whatever else you may say to dismiss the feeling or emotion, is it not true that I felt it?" (emphasis added) was to allude to the fact that one may feel genuine offense, but be unable to convince the other party that the offense felt was legitimate, or justified, or worthy of an apology, or any number of other things. Hypothetical example: I say something that offends you, and you claim offense, and we talk about it, but you're unable to convince me that what I said contained legitimate offense, so we agree to disagree and move on. Based on what you wrote (quoted above), it sounds like you think I should walk away thinking it rude for you to have raised the concern in the first place, because upon examination, I didn't find it contained offense. Am I understanding that correctly, or misinterpreting? I would say it's not rude to merely raise the concern, even if you're unable to convince the other party of whatever it is you're claiming. But I would agree that it would cross the line into rudeness if you continued to pester the person with the same arguments ad nauseam, rather than agreeing to disagree and moving on. Once again, we are in agreement. I utilized the terms "upon examination". Each of us should critically weigh the words and intent if we believe we are being insulted. If our conclusion is insult, then by all means raise an objection. I stated the same in an earlier post, and in the paragraph above gave my example of Vovchandr. I thought about his remarks for several day before judging them insulting. But under no conditions is it appropriate to foment enmity or hatred by sharing unexamined feelings. I don't care if something hurts you - if you consider the words, and can find no offense, keep it to yourself. 1 hour ago, Bruce K said: Do the recent SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC decisions address your concern here? Yes,nominally, but the open repudiation of the decisions by Harvard and other schools worries me. As you pointed out, it is the effects were are concerned with. Harvard has already promulgated their plan for an end-around on this decision. I'll admit this is not a concern I've ever heard before from anyone. I'm not really sure what exactly the problem is. Do you think the prospectus of the relevant funds didn't adequately disclose their plans and goals? Do you think their managers shouldn't be allowed to invest in what they view as long-term, high-risk high-reward opportunities when shorter-term, lower-risk opportunities exist? Do you think fund managers should be held legally liable for the performance of their investments? What law is it you think was violated here? You hit the nail on the head - many of these funds did not include these objectives, and certainly not at the time that long term investments were placed. Many investors continue to be unaware, and are unwittingly helping the nefarious racism of DEI. DEI moves us away from a meritocratic achievement economy into an economy premised on racial subsidies. To grow the economy and enrich our people, and for our future security, we require an achievement economy, where the best and brightest perform our important services, and are generally allowed to accumulate as much success as they can. Would you want your airplane pilot hired, not because he was the best, but because he was a brown man with lesser qualifications? Same with your neurosurgeon, your pancreatic cancer oncologist, the scientists working on your drugs, and so on. In less critical situations, lesser hires will prove adequate, and only the most troglodytic businesses are unaware of our equal opportunity laws, so the numbers will level out. The specific laws are likely contained in the Investment Advisors Act, though I can't point to the specific section, but I'm certain that fee-paid investment agents have the requirement of working only towards the goals outlined in the prospectus. In most prospecti, the goal is to maximize returns. It's long been my opinion that private business would not invest in DEI or Green initiatives if it didn't make business sense (and that includes the possibility that the only benefit is "looking good", but that even then, they would only invest in it if they think there's profit to be made in looking good). Often, the profit is not only less - it disappears with the demise of the various electric bus companies, solar panel companies and others involved in cutting edge tech. These and other problems are the reason DEI and Green funds are losing investors. However, if certain investors want to make less money and enjoy more virtue signaling, that is their God-given right. You seem to acknowledge that there's a racial bias in quality of primary and secondary schools. How, then, can we claim to live in an egalitarian society? How is that equal opportunity? How is that not all the evidence you need to convince you that there is more work yet to be done? Absolutely not - no racial bias, no difference in the potential quality of the schools. Instead, there is a cultural deficiency that results in one-parent households, and in many cases effectively no parents; in obstreperous and unruly kids, who fail to apply themselves in a manner conducive to success: in lawbreaker kids who grow up running errands for gang-bangers and then look for their own street corner; on prison graduates whose skills with drugs and larceny provide no advantage in the outside world; and more. In all cases, unfortunately, these are independent decisions made by both adults and kids. We need to help these kids, but not at the expense of other kids who have accorded themselves properly and qualify for admittance to the best colleges. We currently provide many opportunities to improve, including countless social services, charities and so on. And many such kids also attend community colleges to acquire the skills necessary for larger institutions. I know - I've interviewed and hired many of them. We must remove racism from our solutions to these problems.
  11. @barbox - I agree with you - the outlines of the argument diminish as the issues come into focus. Also, if anyone wishes to use my new favorite line, "Truth is immutable, but often inscrutable", they have to remember to give me attribution! Again, my responses are in red: You wrote this just now: "I think the only examples I used were about feeling genuinely offended, for example due to a dog whistle or stereotype. And even then, I wouldn't advise sharing that feeling all the time, rather I'd say it's only worth it if you think there's a chance of a productive conversation." But I had in mind your earlier statement "But if I feel offended, even if that feeling is unjustified or whatever else you may say to dismiss the feeling or emotion, is it not true that I felt it? Am I not speaking truth when I say I feel offense? It is everyone's right to be offended at any time, for any reason. My point is this: Don't argue or vociferously retort based on feelings, unless you can also demonstrate a legitimate insult, based on the accepted meaning of the words. Reasonable people gave me legitimate reasons why they disliked a correlation with Trump. Their complaints had substance. I would dislike a generalized comparison of myself to Joe Biden for similar reasons. Simple feelings, however, are the insufficient excuse for the propagation of complaints. It is rude and distracting to complain about perceived insults which, upon examination, contain no offense. We should hold our tongues until we are certain that legitimate offense was given, and not just benign opinions, or preferences, or appropriate arguments ad absurdum, etc. Otherwise, our society runs the risk of maturing into frequently injured, frequently complaining nags who seek to prevent the suppress differing opinions. This is why I waited a few days before registering a significant complaint apropos Vovchandr's insulting comments. You wrote this just now: "I think my disagreement here is on the phrase "the agreed and commonly understood meanings of his words" because I think often we are not operating with shared definitions. That doesn't mean we need to start all conversations by going over definitions of words, but it does mean we shouldn't assume everyone's definitely using the same definitions we are all the time, particularly when people have reactions to something we say that we did not anticipate, or that don't seem reasonable. After all, each of us comes to the table with a different upbringing, different cultures, different experiences - it's quite reasonable to assume that, along the way, we may have internalized slightly different meanings for certain things." We do not disagree, my friend. The purpose of topical discourse like this is to arrive as close as we can to the truths of the issue, and then (if possible) forge a compromise. To begin a discussion, terms must be commonly understood. That subject is the first worked out in any conversation. How many conversational ripostes have you heard begin like this: "To begin, by _____ I mean . . . " That is ordinary people setting agreed parameters around the meanings of words, in order to engage in conversation. In intercollegiate debate, it was the practise of many/most teams to write on the chalkboard behind them the definition of any controversial terms. Another example: Your excellent points regarding racism, wherein you correctly establish out that racism is not only intent but systems of operation, of actual practise, i.e., laws that prevent equal opportunity, or reflex opinions beaten into us from youth. In that conversation, you were defining the word for some friends of yours, enabling everyone to enjoy comprehensive discussion of the issue. We will never understand each other fully, but the closest possible understanding can be obtained via language, which enables communication by providing defined terms. Regarding your racism points: Laws are WAY ahead of any old lingering cultural stereotypes. My position is: Laws are TOO far ahead. Well-deserved, hard-working children of white and asian families are being bypassed at high-quality universities in favor of disadvantaged students. Investment firms like Blackrock are reducing the value of shareholder equities by investing in less profitable but DEI- and Green-intensive firms. If your firm is not profitable, and ownership is white, try getting a loan from the SBA. Try firing a black man if he intends to fight it. IMO, disadvantaged students (who could have made it with effort in damaged schools, like the estimable Ben Carson, or Thomas Sowell, who never even graduated from his Harlem high school) should attend community colleges to acquire the skills they missed in their substandard primary and secondary schools. Preventing white and asian racism is now a significant and ascending issue. IMO, regarding social equity investing, it is a violation of law and trust to be paid to provide the best possible return on legal investment, while knowingly shortchanging their constituents with suboptimal funds placements. Also IMO, racist reflexes have been purged by law for decades now, reinforcing enlightened teaching. I don't believe in subtle, reactionary racism on a wide scale anymore, and the laws are overweening. Everyone I know, and most I know of, have many friends and acquaintances of color, and many are close friends or associates. The first manager of my business was a black man. One of my chief techs is black. Many blacks and asians attended my daughter's wedding. Nearly every commercial on television features mixed racial groups. Most white people don't think like that anymore, and even if they tried, legislation prevents it. But where legislation creates racism against whites and asians, those laws need to be corrected.
  12. @barbox - You are a worth adversary, or shall I say accomplice in the search for truth. My responses are in red: Well, we are in the "Politics, Religion, and Controversy" section, aren't we. We're now 3 for 3. I have never brought up a single political issue, except for the use of Trump's name. Religion and apolitical controversy are, however, fine subjects for discourse on this thread, and highly pertinent. Why do you keep jumping to extremes like this? Not everything is a slippery slope. THESE are accurate examples of argument ad absurdum, but like other correct examples of the breed, they establish a point, and do not deliver insults. Regarding feelings: People can feel anything they want. Searching for the truth, however, is a different goal, a higher bar. Truth is difficult to find, but as long as we allow words to have commonly understood definitions, we can approach truth. I made the point earlier that absolute truth belongs to God alone, but our best attempts can still be very good. But any attempt must be centered on the meaning of language. Any philosophy that ignores the meanings of words, or exchanges them for feelings, disables the search for truth. When you were offended by what Vovchandr said, it wasn't because of the definitions of any of the words he used, it was because of the associations and implications of the cultural figures he referenced. Those associations and implications are not universal truths - different people have different associations for the same cultural figures, as you learned with Trump. That doesn't mean one's associations and implications are invalid or untrue, they just vary person to person. The dictionary definition of the term "definition" is the agreed meaning, which in this case encompasses any additional significances acquired by "association". The meaning of Saddam Hussein's life is death: 300,000 largely innocent victims savaged unto demise - a meaning similarly associated with Adolf Hitler. Associating anyone with Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler has an agreed meaning: It means that the person is like these individuals, and is therefore despicable. To unrealistically argue that some other beneficent meaning was intended is to ignore the generally understood significance of the words, and to therefore abandon the search for truth. BTW, I have no emotional response to anything Vovchandr said. My offense is a logical decision, based on his word choice. Why "better yet, withheld"? Like you'd actually prefer to not know if something you said unintentionally offended someone? I am looking to always learn, always grow, always improve. I need feedback to do that. I absolutely want someone to let me know if I said something that's a racist dog whistle or an insensitive stereotype or whatever else may have inadvertently caused offense. People should not burden others with unnecessary feelings. If individual A expresses a thought to individual B that, based on the agreed and commonly understood meanings of his words, is in no way injurious, then individual B should go no further. If the thought is a true "dog whistle" or other injury, then communicate. Expressing our feelings of insult irrespective of the meanings of words just retards communication and prevents open exchange. This is happening on college campuses now, when speakers who are simply conservative, or Jewish, are not allowed to speak. I don't want to know what everyone is thinking all the time - it would drive me insane. If an auditioner can find fault in the meaning of my words, then they should speak, but they should not analyze with feelings. When others told me that many people find any sort of association with Trump to be offensive, it surprised me, but I could understand - Trump's meaning includes several brash and unpopular statements and lots of conservative positions unwelcome to many. It was a truth I did not contemplate when I tendered my original compliment. However, I recognize that truth now and will not repeat the error. Vovchandr should similarly recognize his mistake, based on the meanings of his words. But if I feel offended, even if that feeling is unjustified or whatever else you may say to dismiss the feeling or emotion, is it not true that I felt it? Am I not speaking truth when I say I feel offense? Your feelings are not truth - they are just your emotions, and I don't need or want to hear everyone's feelings. Yes, your feelings belong to you, making them yours, but that doesn't make them logical, fairly derived or true. Again, we must return to the definitions or commonly understood meanings of the words employed in the exchange. If the words were truly racist, or homophobic, or in some other way insulting, state that and prove your point. Otherwise, keep your vagrant whims and emotions to yourself - our heads are already too cluttered. 2 hrs ago, Bruce K said: Perhaps, but that doesn't mean they're any good at finding it. Their bar is generally "beyond all reasonable doubt", which is far from absolute truth. For example, did you know that, since 1973 (when executions were resumed in the US after Furman v. Georgia), for every 8 people executed, 1 person on death row has been exonerated? Especially impressive if you're at all familiar with the enormous challenge it is to exonerate a convict under our legal system. I believe, though flawed, the American jury system is the fairest and best available system for providing our jurisprudence. Would you rather have AI decide our fates? Otherwise, your statement agrees with mine. Juries seek the truth, but because only God knows the absolute truth of any situation, they will often get it wrong. As jurors, and in life, we are attempting, as essentially fallible beings, to find the truth, and failure is inevitable. This is why the Catholic Church, source of so much good, for many years burned "heretics" and "witches" at the stake, accumulated ill-gotten fortunes, and waged territorial wars - because the human nature of its leaders included susceptibility to lies, greed, and other mortal weaknesses. We humans WILL fail, but seeking the truth with words of defined meaning is our best hope to obtain our share of the truth.
  13. @barbox & @SENC - I am very much enjoying this courteous and logical exchange. However, I am becoming aware of some fundamental differences in our world views. In my universe, truth cannot be determined by feelings. Legitimate insult cannot be solely ascertained by how another feels about it, because that discourages all communication - are we to stop saying "Hello" because someone, somewhere may take offense? Are we to cease all criticism, because someone might feel hurt? It is an essential belief of mine that words have universally understood meaning, outside the realm of feelings. Thus, if anyone utters words that are logically and reasonably offensive, based on their common definitions, offense is justified. Otherwise, in the absence of language that is hurtful by definition, feelings about the language are immaterial. Certainly, anyone can feel hurt, at any time, about anything, but in the absence of actual harmful language, the emotions are unjustified and should be ignored, or better yet, withheld. In your example above, the true reason for offense was discovered in your words at a later date. Discovery is a legitimate tool in the search for truth. In fact, that is what happened to me - I discovered over time that the mention of Trump could turn a compliment into an insult by association. We can never find absolute truth, because that belongs to God, but we agree on definitions and get as close as we can. I disagree with the term "your truth" because truth is independent of us and our feelings. Truth is what juries seek, regardless of how defendants feel. Truth is often revealed to us by a conspiracy of our guts and heads, but it stands apart from any individual. Truth is immutable, though not always scrutable. We spend our lives searching for it, but find, by grace of God, only our earned share. To say that truth relies on and changes with individual feelings is to deny the entirety of western learning. To unmoor the meanings of words from their accepted definitions, and replace their meanings with feelings, is to render the search for truth impossible. Further, intent is not something obscure and arcane. It is an essential survival tool, and elemental to human nature. Humans are taught to interpret and respect intent from a young age. I am old enough to remember neighborhood bullies and fist fights, and even though I was a kid, I studied and came to understand, in acute detail, the intent of my block bully. Humans utilize perception of intent at every stoplight, at every crosswalk, whenever we meet a stranger or someone new. Study of intent is at the root of nearly every human transaction. Even animals study and understand intent. Use your angry voice and yell "Good dog " at your pet and see how it responds Thus, intent is not only material, but usually obvious, and in any event, scrutable in most cases by ordinary folk. And intent is a requisite in delivering an insult, because otherwise it is just a mistake. Vovnchandr knew exactly what he was saying. I have already established that "argumentum ad absurdum" is not an excuse for the use of insulting language but rather a tool in the search for truth. The truth about Saddam Hussien is this: He butchered both his political enemies and his governed people - fed them to wild animals and Doberman Pinschers, cut them into pieces, shot them, stabbed them - likely about 300,000 such deaths, not counting those from war. There is no quality of Saddam's that any reasonable, moral person would ever want associated with themselves. Ditto his reference to the serial child molester responsible for over 50 underage assaults. Therefore, Vovchandr, by reasonable measure and definition, intended to insult.
  • Create New...