2
   

S.F. Gate's Mark Morford: Liberals Are So Intolerant!

 
 
dora17
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2005 12:40 pm
kelticwizard wrote:
Quote:
I cannot, for example, tolerate the dark and violent road down which this nation seems intent on careening like an Escalade on meth.



Roads can indeed be violent if violent things are likely to happen if you go down there.




Exactly...
It's like referring to "a bad part of town," which is commonly accepted to be a perfectly sensible phrase. Are the buildings and asphalt and metal etc. in that area posessed? Nooo, we use our common sense to understand that the people there may pose a threat. Just fill in, "like a dude driving an Escalade on meth"... there, feel better? :wink:
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2005 05:24 pm
dora17 wrote:
Just fill in, "like a dude driving an Escalade on meth"... there, feel better? :wink:

I find your sexism to be offensive!








































:wink:
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2005 05:37 pm
dora17 wrote:
It's like referring to "a bad part of town," which is commonly accepted to be a perfectly sensible phrase. Are the buildings and asphalt and metal etc. in that area posessed? Nooo, we use our common sense to understand that the people there may pose a threat.

No doubt a town can be bad, just as anything that has qualities can be bad. But then "bad" can modify any quality intelligibly, whereas "violent" cannot. Everything is capable of being bad, not everything is capable of being violent. For example, we can have "bad eggs" but not "violent eggs" -- the former makes sense whereas the latter (except under some strange, imaginary circumstances) doesn't. In the same way, we can have "bad roads" but not "violent roads."

dora17 wrote:
Just fill in, "like a dude driving an Escalade on meth"... there, feel better? :wink:

But that's not what the author said. He said "an Escalade on meth." That means that the vehicle itself was on meth. You can't equate the vehicle with the driver. We wouldn't say, for instance, that the "Escalade had its license revoked," would we? If the author wanted to say that the driver was on meth, then he should have said that -- but then that would have mangled the simile even more. As it is, it remains a truly awful piece of writing.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2005 08:02 pm
The overall message is spot on. Unfortunately, the ones most in need of hearing it will not be fazed. They will instead run on their way like a cow on LSD spiked grass.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2005 08:08 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
No doubt a town can be bad, just as anything that has qualities can be bad. But then "bad" can modify any quality intelligibly, whereas "violent" cannot. Everything is capable of being bad, not everything is capable of being violent. For example, we can have "bad eggs" but not "violent eggs" -- the former makes sense whereas the latter (except under some strange, imaginary circumstances) doesn't. In the same way, we can have "bad roads" but not "violent roads."

If that's true, then why do we call public thoroughfares in tough neighborhoods "mean streets"? If streets cannot be violent, according to you, then how can they be mean? Yet, it is a common expression.



joefromchicago wrote:
He said "an Escalade on meth." That means that the vehicle itself was on meth. You can't equate the vehicle with the driver. We wouldn't say, for instance, that the "Escalade had its license revoked," would we?

How many times have we heard something like, "The Pontiac cut off the Chevy and the Mustang had to swerve to avoid a collision"? We equate cars with their drivers all the time.

joefromchicago wrote:
As it is, it remains a truly awful piece of writing.

To each his own. I found it quite understandable and enjoyable.
0 Replies
 
dora17
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2005 11:51 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
dora17 wrote:
It's like referring to "a bad part of town," which is commonly accepted to be a perfectly sensible phrase. Are the buildings and asphalt and metal etc. in that area posessed? Nooo, we use our common sense to understand that the people there may pose a threat.

No doubt a town can be bad, just as anything that has qualities can be bad. But then "bad" can modify any quality intelligibly, whereas "violent" cannot. Everything is capable of being bad, not everything is capable of being violent. For example, we can have "bad eggs" but not "violent eggs" -- the former makes sense whereas the latter (except under some strange, imaginary circumstances) doesn't. In the same way, we can have "bad roads" but not "violent roads."

I see your point about the difference between "bad" and "violent"... but I still think those who had such a big problem with this were just being obtuse.

dora17 wrote:
Just fill in, "like a dude driving an Escalade on meth"... there, feel better? :wink:

But that's not what the author said. He said "an Escalade on meth." That means that the vehicle itself was on meth. You can't equate the vehicle with the driver. We wouldn't say, for instance, that the "Escalade had its license revoked," would we? If the author wanted to say that the driver was on meth, then he should have said that -- but then that would have mangled the simile even more. As it is, it remains a truly awful piece of writing.


Oh come on Laughing ...I get that if you are perfectly literal, the sentence means the car is on meth. What I am saying is that those of you who focused on that so obsessively that you couldn't say one thing about the actual point of the article were just being silly. I just think we're all capable of understanding that the car was not on meth. If we understand what the writer is saying, must we minutely dismantle every figure of speech and make sure it makes perfect literal sense or else we cannot discuss the actual gist of the piece?
0 Replies
 
dora17
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2005 11:54 pm
DrewDad wrote:
dora17 wrote:
Just fill in, "like a dude driving an Escalade on meth"... there, feel better? :wink:

I find your sexism to be offensive!



I'm sorry, fill in, "dude or dudette or other life form capable of automobile driving and ingestion of methamphetamines"... God, I'm insensitive.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 03:31:34