Darth Wong wrote:You think this is somehow more offensive ...
Yes, rudeness is more offensive than verbosity, stubbornness, or even stupidity (real or imagined).
than repeating the same basic argument 15 times, in increasingly long-winded verbiage, as if this makes it stronger? You think that "social norms" somehow define "shoving it down peoples' throats". That argument is stupid on every level, and your talent for expanding a one-line idea to 20 paragraphs of bullshit does not strengthen it. And your constant whining is just tiresome; your argument is nothing more than a giant "appeal to popular opinion" fallacy.
If you had simply offered a contrary definition instead of accusing me of claiming my position unethical and trying a silly "gotcha" ploy and exaggerating points and simply dismissing points instead of refuting them, much of the verbiage could have been avoided. Your previous post was about the closest you have come to actually dealing with the issue. For the first time, I feel that we are almost getting there. Yet even now, my position is just "stupid on every level." Until now, the only support you have had for that assertion is that it is somehow unethical. In a discussion about popular attitudes and what constitutes offense, placing an action in context is not an appeal to popularity, just as referencing common usage in discussing the meaning of a phrase is not an appeal to popularity. But I suppose this just constitutes more whining.
Duh, that's what most people mean when they say "shoving it down peoples' throats" if they're talking about anything but sexual openness. Why don't people call it "shoving it down peoples' throats" when someone puts a giant colourful political sign on his front lawn? Why don't people call it "shoving it down peoples' throats" when they see someone wearing clothes that they consider stylistically hideous? Because everyone knows what "shoving it down peoples' throats" means in any other context, and they're applying a double standard. The term necessarily involves some level of coercion. How can the phrase "shoving it down peoples' throats" not be coercive, for fuck's sake?
Now we're getting somewhere. A sign on a yard advertising a candidate is not usually as controversial as public sex. Hideous clothes do not usually cause offense. The phrase is relative to the level of offense, so obviously folks are not likely to use the phrase when describing things that don't actually offend them. Now, I have heard the phrase used in describing t-shirts that someone finds particularly offensive. Maybe you would argue that a t-shirt is not pushy enough to really be "shoving it down their throats," and so would I, but the person making the claim is clearly reacting to a sense of being forced to face offensive material, not to a sense of being coerced into changing his behavior. People get offended by things like public sex and hate-speech and in-your-face preaching and direct, insistent challenges to their beliefs. Sometimes, as with the bartender, someone might use the phrase to describe something that most people would not find highly offensive or pushy. In such cases, the idiot is generally considered over-sensitive, not redefining the meaning of a phrase.
You don't see how "push" and "shove" are similar terms? I see you are bound and determined to prove your stupidity yet again. Both terms imply some level of coercion, moron.
No, twit, coercion is generally understood to be the use of force or the threat of force, or something equally unpleasant, to modify a person's behavior. "Do this, or else...," that is coercion. Pushy need not involve any force or threat at all. Indeed, in need not involve changing a person's behavior or attitude. If you are doing something I don't like, and I tell you to stop, and you make a point of throwing it in my face, that would be pushy. In common use it is often used to mean pushing at boundaries, such as boundaries of tolerance or patience. One can be pushy to get what one wants, or to be obnoxious or offensive. It rarely implies use or threat of force.
"Can you eat quarks? Can you spread them on your bed when the cold weather comes?" -Bernard Levin
"Sir: Mr. Bernard Levin asks 'Can you eat quarks?' I estimate that he eats 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001 quarks a day...Yours faithfully..." -Sir Alan Cottrell
Elohim's loving mercy: "Hey, you, don't turn around. WTF! I said DON'T tur- you know what, you're a pillar of salt now. Bitch." - an anonymous commenter
