"Of course, the kid in this photo is retarded, which absolves him from understanding that, but his "clueless" mother ought to know better."
Got it.
Doing the Dishes
- Thread starter Turtle
- Start date
"Of course, the kid in this photo is retarded, which absolves him from understanding that, but his "clueless" mother ought to know better."
Got it.
Young girl abusing dog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQjYGoeCqK0
Dog extracting revenge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wOQI31_Yf8
Dog extracting revenge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wOQI31_Yf8
That dog looked very disrespected. 
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
The word "retarded" is no longer politically correct, hasn't been for years! Know your lib talk......
I'm not getting your point - even if it weren't common knowledge that the child is mentally retarded, it's obvious from the photo. And Sarah described herself as clueless, so I wasn't being snarky about that.
Both of my daughters would tell you that they would not have been allowed to use a dog as a convenient stepstool, so it's not as if I created a new rule for the occasion.
The fact that I've never cared for her doesn't make my opinion suspect, when it's the same opinion as it was before I ever heard of Sarah Palin.
If it mattered [to me], I'd know it, lol. It's accurate, and the replacement "intellectually and developmentally disabled" [I just looked it up] is an unwieldy mouthful. I'm not a fan of euphemisms - to me, a "sanitary engineer" is a trash collector, lol.
You've been gone a long time - it's good to see you're still alive & picking....
Is it? It ain't a CAT scan.
But my point is, because you knew who the mother was, your response was filtered through the politics of it, otherwise there would be absolutely no need whatsoever to say the mother "ought to know better," and in fact would have no reason to reference the unseen mother at all. The question was, after all, "What do these pictures really illustrate?"
Sarah isn't in the pictures at all, so referencing her at all, unnecessarily, is the being snarky part.
Your opinion isn't suspect regardless. I think Palin is a caricature of a buffoon, but I can look at the pictures and see them for what they are, without having to filter them though my opinion of the kid's owner. Like I've said several times already in this thread, those who don't know who the kid (or the mother) is have typically responded in one manner, namely, not seeing anything wrong with what is depicted in the pictures, and those who find something wrong tend to be those who generally fall into two distinct groups, both of whom filter their responses through a political filter. One group is the PETA Crowd (a liberal group, incidentally) who is offended because the dog was slaved into having to sit through a thoroughly abusive photo session, and the other group is liberals who's opinion regardless of politics nevertheless can't be presented without referencing or blaming the mother (who isn't even present in the pictures).
PETA's official response is actually over-the-top hypocrisy hilarious, because when Ellen DeGeneres posted a pic of a girl standing on a dog to get to the sink, PETA had nothing to say. Not one word. Yet they railed on Palin for the same type of photo. When that hypocrisy was pointed out to PETA, they actually defended DeGeneres stating it was not a problem because the child in the DeGeneres photo wasn't Ellen's.
Incidentally, in 2009 PETA named its Person of the Year because the award winner decided to dump all animal products in life and go Vegan, and among other things, created pages on a Website that features insight, info and tips on cruelty-free living. The award winner? Ellen DeGeneres.
Like I said, from a social science standpoint I find the responses fascinating.
If we can't venture an opinion on the photo without referring to the mother, that's because the mother is well known [publicity ***** in the interest of keeping those public speaking fees in the lucrative territory, in lieu of actual work, but I digress] and she posted the photo with her own comments.
I totally agree that PETA is a bunch of hypocritical whiners, and you ought to know that no one can ever say anything bad about Saint Ellen. [I like Ellen, but nobody is perfect, and the media treats her as if she is].
And: it doesn't take a CAT scan to identify the face of mental retardation, it's as plain as - well, you know.
I totally agree that PETA is a bunch of hypocritical whiners, and you ought to know that no one can ever say anything bad about Saint Ellen. [I like Ellen, but nobody is perfect, and the media treats her as if she is].
And: it doesn't take a CAT scan to identify the face of mental retardation, it's as plain as - well, you know.
She didn't post the photo here. I did. In order to reference the mother, you had to go outside of this thread to do so.
I like her, too, but I find I like her less because her public relations department (the media) does exactly that.
Uhm, OK. In that case, I make a motion that everyone's avatar be an actual picture of their face. That way we'll know.
Fas.cin.at.ing. Amazing. Liberals can not help themselves. Cat's out of the bag and the mother is known, liberals get called on filtering their response through politics, and even when given the opportunity to fake a neutral response, they can't help themselves. As to the question asked of, "What do these pictures really illustrate?" Three choices were given.
I'm not sure what question "If it were me, no I didn't and wouldn't allow my kids to use the dog as a step stool," answers, but if you'd have stopped right there you could have at least feigned plausible non-political neutrality. But nope, couldn't help yourself, had to cap it off with a shot at the mother with, "...let alone take the time and effort to take a snapshot of it, post it on social media and think its cute."
My observations of this phenomenon of politically-based fake outrage is hardly unique.
From CNN.com
She didn't drag the President into it, anymore than she dragged Ellen DeGeneres into it. She dragged PETA's grossly massive hypocrisy into it.
And that's a comment filtered through politics. Her comment was hardly petty and childlike, as it was a direct response to the unprovoked petty and childlike attack from PETA.
You wanna see petty and childlike, look no further than what PETA had to say:
"Palin’s Facebook response shows us that she knows Peta about as well as she knows geography. {more on that incredibly childlike and petty shot below}. Yes, we campaign against the Iditarod because when the dogs aren’t being driven – sometimes to death – most live chained or inside cages for their entire lives." {not true on the chains nor the cages - they're campaigning "we're right and you're wrong, and you're wrong to criticize us" despite them not being right in the first place)
“And we’re a vegan organisation, so we sit on pleather couches, wear stylish vegan kicks and consider fish friends, not food. (Also, by the way, we just sent a case of vegan caviar to Vladimir Putin – and no, you can’t see his house from yours, Ms Palin.)”
There it is. Childlike and petty. Astonishingly so. Incredibly so. Geography, can't see Putin's house from hers? Are you kidding me? That's a reference to, "I can see Russia from my house!" She may be dumber than a pile of bricks, but it's something Sarah Palin never said. Tina Fey said that on SNL. But PETA is so friggin' stoopid they think Palin actually said that, and they used it to attack her. That's neither mature and professional, nor substantive, it's childlike and petty. And it's laugh.out.loud funny.
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
If it mattered [to me], I'd know it, lol. It's accurate, and the replacement "intellectually and developmentally disabled" [I just looked it up] is an unwieldy mouthful. I'm not a fan of euphemisms - to me, a "sanitary engineer" is a trash collector, lol.
You've been gone a long time - it's good to see you're still alive & picking....
Going back to the original post and photos, I'm not certain that one could tell from the pics alone that the child was a down's child. I think only those of us that pay attention, have seen the pic before it was posted here and read the controversy, would know automatically WHO it was, therefore making our opinions politically tainted.
Thanks for the notice, Cheri, even if it was YOU I was picking at!!
jujubeans
OVM Project Manager
Hey DD....*waving from the sidelines* Good to see you!Going back to the original post and photos, I'm not certain that one could tell from the pics alone that the child was a down's child. I think only those of us that pay attention, have seen the pic before it was posted here and read the controversy, would know automatically WHO it was, therefore making our opinions politically tainted.
Thanks for the notice, Cheri, even if it was YOU I was picking at!!
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Turtle, you want sooooo badly to prove that we (those that are opposed to letting a child to use the dog as the picture shown) have an opinion because it's political or a dislike for Palin, that you can't help yourself to do or say whatever you can to show that is why we have that opinion.
It's simple, if my kid did that to our dog, I would say, "Get off the dog and go get yourself a stepstool" It wouldn't even cross my or my wife's friggen' mind to take a snapshot of the situation and too top it off, post it on Facebook.
Yes, you gave three questions to what the pictures represent when in reality, if you were looking for honest answers you could've also included this. Would you allow your child to do this?
The media and that dimwitted woman(Palin) have gotten more attention than they deserve over this stupid chit.
It's simple, if my kid did that to our dog, I would say, "Get off the dog and go get yourself a stepstool" It wouldn't even cross my or my wife's friggen' mind to take a snapshot of the situation and too top it off, post it on Facebook.
Yes, you gave three questions to what the pictures represent when in reality, if you were looking for honest answers you could've also included this. Would you allow your child to do this?
The media and that dimwitted woman(Palin) have gotten more attention than they deserve over this stupid chit.
Last edited:
Incorrect. I stated very clearly in Posts #1, #10 and #19 what I want, and it's not to "prove" anything. It's an experiment to see what happens with the responses that are, and are not, filtered through the sieve of politics, and who are the ones to filter their responses through that filter. Those that reference the mother, regardless of whatever else they may say, have filtered their response through that sieve.
A paragraph that was also filtered through the same sieve.
A) It's my experiment and I'll conduct it any way I like, B) asking that question changes the focus from what those pictures illustrate to something else entirely, and C) the question you suggest is wholly redundant as it automatically gets answered when anyone responds with answer two or three.
Yep, and it's all because of the fake outrage engendered by politics. It reminds me of the "Nappy headed ho" incident with Don Imus, the responses from people who couldn't.care.less about dog fighting about that evil incubus Michael Vick, and when people just went batcrap crazy over this. People are forever clamoring for that next outrage du jour so they can express their fake outrage and then move on.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Those that didn't agree with the kid standing on the dog had already saw the picture and clearly stated so. Because they mentioned the "mother" doesn't mean chit other than they already knew who posted the picture. It wasn't through any sieve what's so ever, other than they didn't approve of a child using the dog in such a way. Mother, Father, Aunt, Uncle whatever it's a moot point you are trying sooooo hard to make.
My comment:
It's simple, if my kid did that to our dog, I would say, "Get off the dog and go get yourself a stepstool" It wouldn't even cross my or my wife's friggen' mind to take a snapshot of the situation and too top it off post it on Facebook.
Your response:
You just proved my point. There is no sieve. Unless of course you think I'm some tree hugging, PETA loving individual which I am not. Please explain what I "filtered" through what "sieve".
I lost interest in what you were saying after, "It's my experiment and I'll conduct it any way I like". The rest read like Charlie Brown's teacher.
Finally, we agree on something.
So stop fanning the flames of fake outrage(we have enough people in here with those fans) and take the word of those that don't agree with using the dog as a "step stool" that it was not filtered through some type of political "sieve" like you soooo want to believe.
You don't use the dog as a step stool and you don't post a picture of it and post it on Facebook. Palin, Degeneress or anyone else.
BTW, I've eaten dog and it wasn't all that bad.
Last edited:
Last edited:
I have found that chicken almost always tastes like chicken.