Larry's Comics at it again...

[Wally's Comics]

YOU LOSE! GOOD DAY SIR!!!!

 

 

 

 

[hockey&comicsguy]

 

We are free to react any way we choose. But if we react to anyone's negative comments, we give them the reaction they seek. We don't NEED to keep doing that, and it would be better if we didn't.

 

You are correct. Some people may simply WANT to react negatively. Some people LIKE to be offended. But are you seriously suggesting that a negative reaction...which has been demonstrated to be detrimental to a person's health...is something that is desirable?

 

People NEED oxygen. People NEED food. People NEED water. They don't NEED to be offended by words that someone else says.

 

 

To this I would say people don't NEED to say the things they say. You're putting so much emphasis on the behavior of those whom the "offensive" words are being directed. Why no urging of people to watch their ing mouths? I find it no less idealistic to ask people to watch what they say than to ask people to have no negative reaction to something that's offensive to them. There'd be no need for a reaction if there were no initial action that could potentially cause it. There's a commonality in your line of thinking that transcends this discussion by the way.

[mikenyc]

Who's desperate now Abraham Lincoln.

 

Did you know Abraham Lincoln was the first real person to be depicted on a US mint coin?

 

No I didn't, thank you for the info. (thumbs u

 

Did you know, that much like our beloved president, Abraham Lincoln, RMA is also a self taught attorney?

 

You insult because you have nothing to contribute.

 

Sad but true.

 

You are ignoring this user.

 

And being a huge obnoxious, delusional, confrontational, know it all, who incites anger from anyone willing to try and have a healthy debate does not equate to being a contributor.

 

It contributes to being the typical little internet guy. Congrats, you win. (thumbs u

 

Maybe we'll meet in person and can have an actual conversation. Until then go fist yourself.

 

P.s. You wish I would PM you little boy.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Wrong.

 

Washington and Lafayette were.

 

 

1900, nine years before the debut of the Lincoln cent.

 

Lincoln was the first real person to be depicted on a circulating US mint coin.

 

I wasn't counting commemoratives, but yes when you include those you are correct.

 

A side question, have you ever considered that sometimes you come off as kind of a d ick?

[sd2416]

Wrong.

 

Washington and Lafayette were.

 

 

1900, nine years before the debut of the Lincoln cent.

 

Lincoln was the first real person to be depicted on a circulating US mint coin.

 

I wasn't counting commemoratives, but yes when you include those you are correct.

 

A side question, have you ever considered that sometimes you come off as kind of a d ick?

Kind of?

[hockey&comicsguy]

A side question, have you ever considered that sometimes you come off as kind of a d ick?

 

 

I personally like RMA despite the fact that I know he's a jackwad. He seems to be one of those people who thinks they know everything when they don't. But that doesn't really mean much when there are a plethora of people on the internet who behave likewise.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Kind of?

 

I was trying to be cordial.

[Not*Sure*]

women still can't drive, or parallel park.

 

Whaaaaaa...seriously dude..I will so parallel park on your behind..

 

wait till BL,Han and Sky get ahold of you...

 

*kicks*

[Not*Sure*]

women still can't drive, or parallel park.

 

That's self-abusing

 

*kick*

[hulksmashdave]

Wrong.

 

Washington and Lafayette were.

 

 

1900, nine years before the debut of the Lincoln cent.

 

Lincoln was the first real person to be depicted on a circulating US mint coin.

 

I wasn't counting commemoratives, but yes when you include those you are correct.

 

A side question, have you ever considered that sometimes you come off as kind of a d ick?

 

No, he hasn't.

[Not*Sure*]

This thread is stuck on stupid.

 

see I even used the word boobs to cheer you up Diggler

 

 

glad to see someone appreciates me..tell them how I can drive just fine..I can't always see my feet but you know it does not hurt my ability to park a car..

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

We are free to react any way we choose. But if we react to anyone's negative comments, we give them the reaction they seek. We don't NEED to keep doing that, and it would be better if we didn't.

 

You are correct. Some people may simply WANT to react negatively. Some people LIKE to be offended. But are you seriously suggesting that a negative reaction...which has been demonstrated to be detrimental to a person's health...is something that is desirable?

 

People NEED oxygen. People NEED food. People NEED water. They don't NEED to be offended by words that someone else says.

 

 

To this I would say people don't NEED to say the things they say. You're putting so much emphasis on the behavior of those whom the "offensive" words are being directed. Why no urging of people to watch their ing mouths?

 

Oh, man, that's easy.

 

Because if you don't react, they eventually give up (at least with you.)

 

It is a self-fulfilling concept. Haters don't get the reaction they seek, and they move on to some other target. If EVERYONE doesn't react, who do they have left to spew to?

 

Trying to force people, through peer pressure, social mores, or even the law, to "watch their ing mouths" inevitably makes the desire to do so MORE INTENSE.

 

"Don't do that!" = wow, you've just made me want to do that infinitely more.

 

"Go ahead, do it. See if I care." = man, what a thrillkill.

 

Didn't all of our mothers teach us these simple truths of life?

 

I find it no less idealistic to ask people to watch what they say than to ask people to have no negative reaction to something that's offensive to them.

 

You're missing the point. It's not just "having no negative reaction"...it's not being offended by abrasive, ill mannered words in the first place. If you're not offended in the first place, you will automatically have no reaction.

 

Maybe pity.

 

 

[VintageComics]

I think there are a lot of intelligent people on here who get too emotional about the subject matter.

 

Get along, folks.

 

This is just a play sandbox, not some desert wasteland where people are fighting for their lives.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Wrong.

 

Washington and Lafayette were.

 

 

1900, nine years before the debut of the Lincoln cent.

 

Lincoln was the first real person to be depicted on a circulating US mint coin.

 

I wasn't counting commemoratives, but yes when you include those you are correct.

 

A side question, have you ever considered that sometimes you come off as kind of a d ick?

 

No, he hasn't.

 

You guys just don't have a clue about it.

 

But, hey, continue to believe whatever it is you wish.

 

(thumbs u

[cd4ever]

I think there are a lot of intelligent people on here who get too emotional about the subject matter.

 

Get along, folks.

 

This is just a play sandbox, not some desert wasteland where people are fighting for their lives.

Agreed. Thank goodness for the occasional boob sighting.

[mikenyc]

You are correct. Some people may simply WANT to react negatively. Some people LIKE to be offended. But are you seriously suggesting that a negative reaction...which has been demonstrated to be detrimental to a person's health...is something that is desirable?

 

People NEED oxygen. People NEED food. People NEED water. They don't NEED to be offended by words that someone else says.

 

Here is my contribution:

 

The problem with this argument is that it assumes that emotion can be shut on and off. If someone walks up to you and is purposefully insulting you may be able to control how you react. You can choose to punch them in their mouth or simply walk away. You may yell at them or calmly explain that they shouldn't say those things.

 

But internally those words may hurt and the malice behind them may cut deep. Can you control when something upsets you? What about seeing a beautiful women, can you tell your brain she is ugly?

 

We are not robotic, and yes in a textbook version of reality you can disarm the attacker by not giving credence to their words. Thankfully, we are human, and can't control what offends us. No we don't need to be offended, but that doesn't change the fact that many times, we are.

 

Why remove the onus from the attacker and place it on the victim. My cousin reading a tweet from a comic dealer who is comfortable enough to use the n word is his fault? He shouldn't be offended? You use Jackie Robinson as an example but it's completely out of context. He played ball during a time where lynchings and beatings were the norm. He didn't react to the racism because he couldn't. That is the fundamental difference.

 

You can qualify racism, show a couple prominent minority figures who overcame it, but to argue that the words only have power if you give them power is off base. You remove human nature and social norms and assume people can operate in a purely objective manner. Life don't work that way.

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Wrong.

 

Washington and Lafayette were.

 

 

1900, nine years before the debut of the Lincoln cent.

 

Lincoln was the first real person to be depicted on a circulating US mint coin.

 

I wasn't counting commemoratives, but yes when you include those you are correct.

 

Oh, I see. So, the reader was supposed to read it like this:

 

"Did you know Abraham Lincoln was the first real person to be depicted on a US mint coin? (not counting commemoratives, even though that doesn't mean much to people on this side of the board.)"

 

?

 

You can't admit when you're wrong.

 

A side question, have you ever considered that sometimes you come off as kind of a d ick?

 

 

Read my sig.

 

And this coming from the guy who called me a LIAR because he didn't agree with my interpretation of what someone else said.

 

 

Oh, the irony.

 

[USArmyParatrooper]

Good Lord. Have fun mike (thumbs u

[hockey&comicsguy]

 

Oh, man, that's easy.

 

Because if you don't react, they eventually give up (at least with you.)

 

It is a self-fulfilling concept. Haters don't get the reaction they seek, and they move on to some other target. If EVERYONE doesn't react, who do they have left to spew to?

 

Trying to force people, through peer pressure, social mores, or even the law, to "watch their ing mouths" inevitably makes the desire to do so MORE INTENSE.

 

"Don't do that!" = wow, you've just made me want to do that infinitely more.

 

"Go ahead, do it. See if I care." = man, what a thrillkill.

 

Didn't all of our mothers teach us these simple truths of life?

 

I find it no less idealistic to ask people to watch what they say than to ask people to have no negative reaction to something that's offensive to them.

 

You're missing the point. It's not just "having no negative reaction"...it's not being offended by abrasive, ill mannered words in the first place. If you're not offended in the first place, you will automatically have no reaction.

 

Maybe pity.

 

 

I think you seem to have forgotten another lesson our mother's taught us. If you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all.

 

Look, what you're saying has some real validity to it. But what you're asking for is simply unrealistic. So if we're going to be unrealistic with our desires then let's at least be open enough to see there's more than one idealistic solution to these issues.

 

It is no less idealistic for me to point my finger at the perpetrators and ask them to refrain than it is for you to point your finger at the "victims" (and that's what they are if they feel as such you don't get to decide for them) and ask them to turn the other cheek or simply not feel a certain way. As if we're all robots or capable of incredible feats of self control. If we are capable of such control, then so are those who would use such hateful words.

 

I'm not missing any point. I'm just open minded enough to see multiple angles on this.