(08-26-2014 01:07 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 12:58 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 12:49 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 12:47 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  mmmmm...bacon

Once cooked a big ol' turkey wrapped in bacon on a charcoal grill for Thanksgiving. It took forever but after many beers a many hours it sure was some good eatin'.

I will bet it was quite good indeed. I have yet to find anything that doesn't go well with bacon, but I will continue my search while combining as much as possible with bacon just to make sure.

Well, this is just for you

https://gma.yahoo.com/pig-bacon-bar-comi...cipes.html

Me? I love Montreal, but don't like bacon.

Yeah, I saw that, may just be reason enough to make my way to Montreal for the first time.

(08-26-2014 01:11 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 01:07 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 12:58 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 12:49 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 12:47 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  mmmmm...bacon

Once cooked a big ol' turkey wrapped in bacon on a charcoal grill for Thanksgiving. It took forever but after many beers a many hours it sure was some good eatin'.

I will bet it was quite good indeed. I have yet to find anything that doesn't go well with bacon, but I will continue my search while combining as much as possible with bacon just to make sure.

Well, this is just for you

https://gma.yahoo.com/pig-bacon-bar-comi...cipes.html

Me? I love Montreal, but don't like bacon.

Yeah, I saw that, may just be reason enough to make my way to Montreal for the first time.

How about one of thsese?

(08-26-2014 11:48 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 11:31 AM)Smaug Wrote:  I'd have just ignored her.

Occam's razor.

Yep. Heart of the matter.

If I engaged her at all, I'd have said, "We have some non-bacon menu items you're welcome to try, but we're not changing what has made us successful."

(08-26-2014 01:54 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 11:48 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 11:31 AM)Smaug Wrote:  I'd have just ignored her.

Occam's razor.

Yep. Heart of the matter.

If I engaged her at all, I'd have said, "We have some non-bacon menu items you're welcome to try, but we're not changing what has made us successful."

Damn, now I got that Don Henley song stuck in my head.

You are really going to feel offended if
you spend your whole life trying not to
offend people.

(08-26-2014 12:58 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 12:49 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 12:47 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  mmmmm...bacon

Once cooked a big ol' turkey wrapped in bacon on a charcoal grill for Thanksgiving. It took forever but after many beers a many hours it sure was some good eatin'.

I will bet it was quite good indeed. I have yet to find anything that doesn't go well with bacon, but I will continue my search while combining as much as possible with bacon just to make sure.

At my daughters suggestion we did up a Thanksgiving treat last year.

get some good quality thick cut bacon. Bake it off in the oven on parchment paper until crispy but not brittle. Drain fat off (of course)

Melt a good size bar of dark, dark, dark chocolate. Either dip and drain or you can lay down another sheet of parchment and pour the choc over the bacon, flipping it if pouring over, until covered.

Pop it in the fridge to cool and set.

We then took it to the Out-laws in a cookie tin like all the other semi-terrible Holiday cookies they are given each year and just put it out on the table like all the others. It was nothing but bacon bits in the bottom within 10-15 minutes.

Bunch of health food nuts...

JMU.. That's straight up Paleo.. Bacon.. Dark chocolate.. That's 2 things they say you can eat.

and she's worried about bacon?

Well it's ok to have her clit removed but dammit don't let her see the word bacon..

(08-26-2014 12:22 PM)gdunn Wrote:  I wanna follow her to a market and put a few packs of ham and bacon in her shopping cart.. She if she accepts the swine challenge.

Someone should light on of these in her house for a few hours!

(08-26-2014 02:45 PM)gdunn Wrote:  JMU.. That's straight up Paleo.. Bacon.. Dark chocolate.. That's 2 things they say you can eat.

Oh, and one small addition of mine- I dusted about half of it with a good, hot, ground cayenne pepper. Hot, sweet, salty and bacony. Holy feigned Ooofense Batman. Even the Muslims were packing it down...

JH,

You have chosen one interpretation of the person, Marine has chosen another. Neither is demonstrably correct or incorrect... both are possible. While you honestly don't see claims that she sought to enforce her opinion, obviously SOMEBODY put enough pressure on the business owner to make them back away from what is an extremely popular meme (that bacon is delicious and goes with everything). So either interpretation is possible.

The entire concept of 'offense' means that your expression has violated my rights... otherwise nobody would have ever needed to say that you don't have the right to not be offended. Obviously SOME people believe that. Under Marine's assumption, I agree with his characterization that the belief has no place in this country, but is entirely appropriate in others. If that is her goal, she should go elsewhere. I don't think you disagree with this... you only disagree that this was her intent. If you accept Marine's hypothesis, the comment isn't the problem you seem to think it is.

The ACLU doesn't agree with the KKKs position, but they agree with their right to express it. This lady may or may not. If she does, fine. If not, then it's a problem.

As I said, because the woman isn't quoted as saying that she finds bacon to be filthy (a counter to the statement that the restaurant owner made) but instead argues that she is offended by the restaurant owner's statement (according to the article)... she is not merely disagreeing with the position, but instead arguing that the statement 'injures' her to some degree. That is not at all the same thing as your KKK analogy. The ACLU does not argue that their sensibilities are 'injured' by the KKK. NOW we're only discussing whether that injury is protected or not somehow (which IS a Constitutional question)... and not whether or not she is actually injured (if not, then not a Constitutional question)

That is precisely my point. Have an opinion about the issue (whether or not pork is good or the kkk is right) and not about whether someone else's opinion 'injures' you (or your sensibilities).

I'm offended by muslims chopping people's heads off. Why doesn't she stop them from doing it and video taping it. Nooooooo, she's offended by bacon. Wow.

I would have said, "I'm sorry if it offends you but the sign stays. By the way, I'm offended that you were offended".

Lots of good posts on here.

(08-26-2014 01:51 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 01:11 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 01:07 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 12:58 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 12:49 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Once cooked a big ol' turkey wrapped in bacon on a charcoal grill for Thanksgiving. It took forever but after many beers a many hours it sure was some good eatin'.

I will bet it was quite good indeed. I have yet to find anything that doesn't go well with bacon, but I will continue my search while combining as much as possible with bacon just to make sure.

Well, this is just for you

https://gma.yahoo.com/pig-bacon-bar-comi...cipes.html

Me? I love Montreal, but don't like bacon.

Yeah, I saw that, may just be reason enough to make my way to Montreal for the first time.

How about one of thsese?

That may be a bit much, maybe 2/3 of that would be perfect.

(08-26-2014 05:19 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 01:51 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 01:11 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 01:07 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 12:58 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  I will bet it was quite good indeed. I have yet to find anything that doesn't go well with bacon, but I will continue my search while combining as much as possible with bacon just to make sure.

Well, this is just for you

https://gma.yahoo.com/pig-bacon-bar-comi...cipes.html

Me? I love Montreal, but don't like bacon.

Yeah, I saw that, may just be reason enough to make my way to Montreal for the first time.

How about one of thsese?

That may be a bit much, maybe 2/3 of that would be perfect.

Only if I get a doggy bag for the other 3rd.

(08-25-2014 11:34 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 08:33 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  You can get emotions out of words?

As your entire premise is based on you being able to divine her emotions based on her words, I'll go with yes.

Quote:Believe me, you will be able to tell if I am upset.

I'm positively giddy with anticipation.

Quote:Like I said earlier, just because I am voicing my opinion, doesn't mean I am upset.

So why do you think she was upset? She voiced her opinion in much more measured words than you did.

Quote:Does she have the right to say whatever she wants? Hell yeah she does. If she doesn't like bacon, she doesn't have to look at that sign, she can put her hand up or turn away.

Just so we are clear, your idea of her being able to say whatever she wants to say is that she is free to not look at the sign? That is certainly an interesting perspective.

Quote:She is impeding other people to voice their opinions. This business has the right to put anything they wants on a sign, as long as its in good taste.

No, she is expressing her own opinion. She thinks the sign is in poor taste. That's a stupid opinion, but the First Amendment protects those too. You are the one saying she should leave the country merely for expressing her own opinion. That is an even stupider opinion, but I believe you have every right to express it. Just as I have every right to point out just how stupid it is. The proper response to bad speech is more speech, not less.

And in the event that the Front Porch website is actually a municipal government site and she was seeking government action, then she was taking advantage of a different portion of the First Amendment as well.

Quote:Do you think she is more American than you or I?

I have no idea, but it makes no difference to me. I'm not the one telling her to go back to her country. I have no reason to believe that America isn't her country.

Thanks for wasting everyone's time with your childish trolling.

(08-26-2014 03:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  JH,
You have chosen one interpretation of the person, Marine has chosen another. Neither is demonstrably correct or incorrect... both are possible. While you honestly don't see claims that she sought to enforce her opinion, obviously SOMEBODY put enough pressure on the business owner to make them back away from what is an extremely popular meme (that bacon is delicious and goes with everything). So either interpretation is possible.

I haven't chosen any interpretation. I don't have to. To quote the great Bill Murray, "It just doesn't matter."

Even if she was demanding the government step in and force the removal of the sign, something that there is no evidence of in any of the brief excerpts I have read, her statement is still fully protected by the First Amendment.

Quote:The entire concept of 'offense' means that your expression has violated my rights... otherwise nobody would have ever needed to say that you don't have the right to not be offended.

This is untrue. You can't simply make up definitions that don't correspond with reality. Here's an article (one of many) talking about offensive ads--no mention of rights at all. These ads were quickly pulled because they were offensive, not because they violated anyone's rights.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-excha...52385.html

Just because you can do something does not mean that you should do it. Rights come in to play when determining whether you can legally do something. Sensibilities (and offense) come in when deciding whether you should. But even if somebody shouldn't have done something they did, there's not much you can do about it because you don't have a right not to be offended.

Quote:Obviously SOME people believe that. Under Marine's assumption, I agree with his characterization that the belief has no place in this country, but is entirely appropriate in others. If that is her goal, she should go elsewhere. I don't think you disagree with this... you only disagree that this was her intent. If you accept Marine's hypothesis, the comment isn't the problem you seem to think it is.

No, even if her goal is the absolute suppression of any speech she finds offensive, she is still free to stay. The proper response to bad speech is more speech, not the suppression of speech. If you think her complaint is stupid (it is), and you feel the need to weigh in on a sign controversy in a town you will probably never visit (you probably shouldn't), then by all means go for it. But she is still entitled to voice her opinion.

Quote:The ACLU doesn't agree with the KKKs position, but they agree with their right to express it. This lady may or may not. If she does, fine. If not, then it's a problem.

No, it's not. The desirable scope of the First Amendment is certainly open for debate. Just as every other aspect of the Constitution, or any other part of our government, is.

Tell me, what should be done to the people who try to prevent the KKK from marching through their town? Or what about Albert Phelps, who tried to punish the Westboro Baptist Church for their constitutionally protected expressions? Are they also un-American? I certainly don't think so.

Quote:As I said, because the woman isn't quoted as saying that she finds bacon to be filthy (a counter to the statement that the restaurant owner made) but instead argues that she is offended by the restaurant owner's statement (according to the article)... she is not merely disagreeing with the position, but instead arguing that the statement 'injures' her to some degree. That is not at all the same thing as your KKK analogy. The ACLU does not argue that their sensibilities are 'injured' by the KKK. NOW we're only discussing whether that injury is protected or not somehow (which IS a Constitutional question)... and not whether or not she is actually injured (if not, then not a Constitutional question)

No, because they value free speech, the ACLU represents the KKK against people who are also offended by the KKK. It wouldn't make sense for them to argue that the KKK is offensive, although I suspect that they admit it during their opening and closing arguments, they people they are suing on behalf of the KKK are the ones claiming injury. And there was no analogy. The ACLU's representation of the KKK was an example of a group advocating to allow expressions they find offensive.

Quote:That is precisely my point. Have an opinion about the issue (whether or not pork is good or the kkk is right) and not about whether someone else's opinion 'injures' you (or your sensibilities).

So there is nothing that anyone could ever say to you (or your family) that would offend you? I find that very hard to believe.

Simply telling people not to be offended is senseless. It's asking them to do the impossible. Most people, however, recognize that one of the costs of living in a free society is that, on occasion, you will be offended and are more than willing to make that trade. And sometimes people need to be reminded of that tradeoff.

(08-26-2014 11:09 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 03:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  JH,
You have chosen one interpretation of the person, Marine has chosen another. Neither is demonstrably correct or incorrect... both are possible. While you honestly don't see claims that she sought to enforce her opinion, obviously SOMEBODY put enough pressure on the business owner to make them back away from what is an extremely popular meme (that bacon is delicious and goes with everything). So either interpretation is possible.

I haven't chosen any interpretation. I don't have to. To quote the great Bill Murray, "It just doesn't matter."

Even if she was demanding the government step in and force the removal of the sign, something that there is no evidence of in any of the brief excerpts I have read, her statement is still fully protected by the First Amendment.

Quote:The entire concept of 'offense' means that your expression has violated my rights... otherwise nobody would have ever needed to say that you don't have the right to not be offended.

This is untrue. You can't simply make up definitions that don't correspond with reality. Here's an article (one of many) talking about offensive ads--no mention of rights at all. These ads were quickly pulled because they were offensive, not because they violated anyone's rights.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-excha...52385.html

Just because you can do something does not mean that you should do it. Rights come in to play when determining whether you can legally do something. Sensibilities (and offense) come in when deciding whether you should. But even if somebody shouldn't have done something they did, there's not much you can do about it because you don't have a right not to be offended.

Quote:Obviously SOME people believe that. Under Marine's assumption, I agree with his characterization that the belief has no place in this country, but is entirely appropriate in others. If that is her goal, she should go elsewhere. I don't think you disagree with this... you only disagree that this was her intent. If you accept Marine's hypothesis, the comment isn't the problem you seem to think it is.

No, even if her goal is the absolute suppression of any speech she finds offensive, she is still free to stay. The proper response to bad speech is more speech, not the suppression of speech. If you think her complaint is stupid (it is), and you feel the need to weigh in on a sign controversy in a town you will probably never visit (you probably shouldn't), then by all means go for it. But she is still entitled to voice her opinion.

Quote:The ACLU doesn't agree with the KKKs position, but they agree with their right to express it. This lady may or may not. If she does, fine. If not, then it's a problem.

No, it's not. The desirable scope of the First Amendment is certainly open for debate. Just as every other aspect of the Constitution, or any other part of our government, is.

Tell me, what should be done to the people who try to prevent the KKK from marching through their town? Or what about Albert Phelps, who tried to punish the Westboro Baptist Church for their constitutionally protected expressions? Are they also un-American? I certainly don't think so.

Quote:As I said, because the woman isn't quoted as saying that she finds bacon to be filthy (a counter to the statement that the restaurant owner made) but instead argues that she is offended by the restaurant owner's statement (according to the article)... she is not merely disagreeing with the position, but instead arguing that the statement 'injures' her to some degree. That is not at all the same thing as your KKK analogy. The ACLU does not argue that their sensibilities are 'injured' by the KKK. NOW we're only discussing whether that injury is protected or not somehow (which IS a Constitutional question)... and not whether or not she is actually injured (if not, then not a Constitutional question)

No, because they value free speech, the ACLU represents the KKK against people who are also offended by the KKK. It wouldn't make sense for them to argue that the KKK is offensive, although I suspect that they admit it during their opening and closing arguments, they people they are suing on behalf of the KKK are the ones claiming injury. And there was no analogy. The ACLU's representation of the KKK was an example of a group advocating to allow expressions they find offensive.

Quote:That is precisely my point. Have an opinion about the issue (whether or not pork is good or the kkk is right) and not about whether someone else's opinion 'injures' you (or your sensibilities).

So there is nothing that anyone could ever say to you (or your family) that would offend you? I find that very hard to believe.

Simply telling people not to be offended is senseless. It's asking them to do the impossible. Most people, however, recognize that one of the costs of living in a free society is that, on occasion, you will be offended and are more than willing to make that trade. And sometimes people need to be reminded of that tradeoff.

Oh for fvcks sake, it was the word bacon. Where does this silly schitt end? She's not being forced to eat the bacon. Just STFU and move along.