News Stories

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

Why are some people in my country just so batshit insane?

I'm not sure if I should be entertained by such stupidity or face palming. A bit of both I suppose .

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

I'm not sure if I should be entertained by such stupidity or face palming. A bit of both I suppose .

I think it would be better to just treat it as stand-up comedy between a a tsukkomi and boke.

As much as I read about politics, I don't take sides. If pressed for "moral commitment" by my peers, I would treat it as a manzai.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Insanity sells... it promotes fear and anxiety so you'll hang on through the next commercial break. The "news media" and "reality tv" in the US would be delivering snuff film if they thought they could get away with it.

Don't give them ideas.

The sad part is a good portion of people watching were likely convinced by that guy's shouting that terror babies are real. If you give it half a thought though, it's a ridiculous concept. What benefit does having a terrorist 20 years from now do, when they need terrorists now? Though I was more annoyed at his continued use of "more stupid" when stupid is an -er adjective. Well at least he wasn't saying more stupider.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Don't give them ideas.

The sad part is a good portion of people watching were likely convinced by that guy's shouting that terror babies are real. If you give it half a thought though, it's a ridiculous concept. What benefit does having a terrorist 20 years from now do, when they need terrorists now?

Well, no doubt they'll also need terrorists in twenty years. I'm more worried about the fact it's hard to raise a kid to be anything, or there'd be a lot more doctors around.... Plus, as the other guy pointed out, they have no problem recruiting adult Americans. A much surer bet.

Though I was more annoyed at his continued use of "more stupid" when stupid is an -er adjective. Well at least he wasn't saying more stupider.

Aren't both "stupider" and "more stupid" correct, though?

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Aren't both "stupider" and "more stupid" correct, though?

No, it's either more/most or -er/-est. It's misused a lot though, which is why it annoys me. If it wasn't an extremely common mistake, I wouldn't care as much.

[FateAnomaly]

Hmm i always thought "more stupid" is correct. Stupider sounds really awkward to say.

[SaintessHeart]

Won't it be easier to use the word dumb? Dumb-dumber-dumbest?

Okay why are we even debating the usage of English here?

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Won't it be easier to use the word dumb? Dumb-dumber-dumbest?

Okay why are we even debating the usage of English here?

Because it's more interesting then some nut screaming "TERRORIST BABIES R IN UR COUNTRY KILLIN' UR DUDES!"?

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Aren't both "stupider" and "more stupid" correct, though?

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

No, it's either more/most or -er/-est. It's misused a lot though, which is why it annoys me. If it wasn't an extremely common mistake, I wouldn't care as much.

Originally Posted by FateAnomaly

Hmm i always thought "more stupid" is correct. Stupider sounds really awkward to say.

All of the above are correct — depending on which form of English you're using. The word "stupider" is considered incorrect in British English, but is loosely allowed in American English. Even then, it's normally limited to phrasal usage, meaning to say, it's not strictly correct to write "stupider"; "more stupid" is preferred.

American English (AmE) gives me headaches most days of the week. My objections to AmE's grammatical and spelling variations are similar to objections in Hong Kong and Taiwan towards the use of simplified Chinese script: It bastardises the language.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

All of the above are correct — depending on which form of English you're using. The word "stupider" is considered incorrect in British English, but is loosely allowed in American English. Even then, it's normally limited to phrasal usage, meaning to say, it's not strictly correct to write "stupider"; "more stupid" is preferred.

Except it isn't.

Originally Posted by http://oxforddictionaries.com

stupid (stu·pid)
Pronunciation:
/ˈst(y)o͞opid/
adjective
(-pid·er, -pid·est)
lacking intelligence or common sense:

Originally Posted by dictionary.reference.com

stu·pid   [stoo-pid, styoo‐] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est,

It's an -er/-est adjective. Need I cite more sources?

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Because it's more interesting then some nut screaming "TERRORIST BABIES R IN UR COUNTRY KILLIN' UR DUDES!"?

And it's more civilized, if not also the occasion of opinions more coherents.

[FateAnomaly]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Except it isn't.





It's an -er/-est adjective. Need I cite more sources?

Dictionaries list slangs too. The fact that dictionaries has it doesn't mean "more stupid" is wrong only that "stupider" is acceptable.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Except it isn't.

It's an -er/-est adjective. Need I cite more sources?

Heh, I stand corrected — but not for the right reason.

I checked with a senior colleague with more than 30 years of experience in his profession, and from whom I've learnt a lot in the past two years. It appears that there is a rule of thumb advising against the use of -er/-est for adjectives with more than one syllable.

So:

tall, taller, tallest;

fast, faster, fastest;

dumb, dumber, dumbest.

But not:

alert, alerter, alertest;

rapid, rapider, rapidest;

stupid, stupider, stupidest.

Even so, note that it is only a rule of thumb. There are plenty of exceptions to the rule and, apparently, the only way to "know" for sure is to play by ear (the same way the Japanese intuitively know that it's Nihonbashi and not Nihonhashi, makizushi and not makisushi — the combined words just wouldn't sound right if pronounced the latter way).

Common exceptions:

Two-syllable adjectives

ugly, uglier, ugliest;

easy, easier, easiest;

empty, emptier, emptiest.

So, in the end, we are none the wiser. George Orwell's sixth rule for good writing applies:

"Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous."

[Reckoner]

The more I read about this ground zero mosque debacle, the more sad it gets.

It's not a mosque, it's a cultural center. There are 100's of mosques in NY city alone, and a few of them even in ground zero territory. There was a Muslim prayer section in the WTC, there is a Muslim prayer room in the pentagon, the leader of the project is FBI approved, Muslims =/= terrorist, the center is actually not LOCATED at GROUND ZERO, but actually 2 BLOCKS from it.

Furthermore, ground zero is not some sort of sacred ground and we should not treat it as such. Even if were to prohibit them from building the mosque , who should be the one to decide how close they can build anything? The Government?

Does Japan prohibit Christian churches in Hiroshima because Truman was Christian?

There is no legal right to try and dissuade these peaceful Muslims, and there is no "moral" right either, especially considering all the Muslims who also died on 9/11. Any uneasiness the public feels is completely irrational.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Does Japan prohibit Christian churches in Hiroshima because Truman was Christian?

was Hiroshima destroyed BECAUSE Truman was Christian ?
was WWII motivated by religious beliefs ?

don't get me wrong, i'm all for religious freedom, provided that it includes freedom FROM religion as well
if most New-Yorkers DON'T want them to build a Mosque there, then you shouldn't build a Mosque there.

Religious belief should take a back seat to cultural sensitivity.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

Religious belief should take a back seat to cultural sensitivity.

Well legally no.

Morally, I still say no. This is not a justified cultural sensitivity because we as Americans are of all cultures singling one within us for irrational beliefs. Just no.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

Religious belief should take a back seat to cultural sensitivity.

And what exactly is insensitive here? There are already other Muslim places of worship in lower Manhattan. What exactly is so special about one more? Especially when you consider it isn't even in view of the World Trade Center site.

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

Religious belief should take a back seat to cultural sensitivity.

There's no such difference here. This is a case of Muslims vs (white) Christians.

Heck, even Egyptian Christians get threatened:
http://www.northjersey.com/news/opin...tml?c=y&page=2

There are protests against mosques all over the US:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html?_r=1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_674766.html (has a very nice "This is not your country" protest sign in the pic)

I don't like either group, but under the Constitution the government is not allowed to support one religion over another, so Muslims certainly have a right to build a mosque, especially when it's not even at Ground Zero, despite what the lying media and right wing say.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

There's no such difference here. This is a case of Muslims vs (white) Christians.

Heck, even Egyptian Christians get threatened:
http://www.northjersey.com/news/opin...tml?c=y&page=2

There are protests against mosques all over the US:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html?_r=1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_674766.html (has a very nice "This is not your country" protest sign in the pic)

I don't like either group, but under the Constitution the government is not allowed to support one religion over another, so Muslims certainly have a right to build a mosque, especially when it's not even at Ground Zero, despite what the lying media and right wing say.

I'd say to let them duke it out in "American Civil War II".

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

There's no such difference here. This is a case of Muslims vs (white) Christians.

Heck, even Egyptian Christians get threatened:
http://www.northjersey.com/news/opin...tml?c=y&page=2

There are protests against mosques all over the US:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html?_r=1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_674766.html (has a very nice "This is not your country" protest sign in the pic)

I don't like either group, but under the Constitution the government is not allowed to support one religion over another, so Muslims certainly have a right to build a mosque, especially when it's not even at Ground Zero, despite what the lying media and right wing say.

Which would be relevent if opposition to the Mosque took the form of "No, we should build a Church there instead"
THEN, you'd have a point about no one religion getting support over another.

the opposition is not saying they should build a church instead
they are saying that they don't want a Mosque there.

this should be about giving NO religions belief (as in, freedom FROM religion) an advantage over A religions belief.

And what exactly is insensitive here? There are already other Muslim places of worship in lower Manhattan. What exactly is so special about one more? Especially when you consider it isn't even in view of the World Trade Center site.

the fact that most of New Yorkers apparently think that its completely inappropriate.
THAT, is insensitive.

Well legally no.

Morally, I still say no. This is not a justified cultural sensitivity because we as Americans are of all cultures singling one within us for irrational beliefs. Just no.

then ban ANY religious constructs if you will.
Build a huge Museum or a giant school for the arts, or whatever ELSE.
but don't create something with a religious connotation where people don't WANT it.

religious faith divides us, by creating an in group and out groups.
regardless to whether or not they call it a "community center", its an ISLAMIC project.
if they really want to contribute and create something that improves the lives of everyone, make a religiously neutral project.