Stupid Dirty Girl

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
wolfeden

wolfeden

Refugee
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Messages
1,347
Location
calm down, cold resides with me. I flee to decembe
"It means stupid, dirty girl." ? California Education Secretary Richard Riordan, when asked by a little girl if he knew that her first name, Isis, meant "Egyptian goddess."


"No one ever accused Richard Riordan of being a prisoner to political correctness, but the feisty former mayor of Los Angeles and now the state's education secretary may have outdone himself last week when he called a youngster at a book event a "stupid, dirty girl."........"


read the rest, if you can stomach it.

Demand this guy step down now! :barf: :mad:
Californians with kids - it could have been your child he said this to!

-Disgusted and appalled parent of a 5 year old whose name means "dream", and so help me if he'd said that to HER he'd have shortly thereafter found himself on the wrong end of my fist. I'm not sorry, saying something like that to a child is just VILE. "Misunderstanding", my pale white behind. And we all know it wasn't a Caucasian child he said this to either. Sick bastard.
 
I think we can say "goodbye" to him faster than one can say "Trent Lott."

Melon
 
<< Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who named the 74-year-old Riordan to his Cabinet, issued a stern statement calling his appointee's remark "unacceptable in any context." But Schwarzenegger went on to say that Riordan "would never knowingly or intentionally upset a child. ... I know he deeply regrets having made these unfortunate remarks." >>

<< "She was just a supercool kid," Keator said. "It bothered her but she didn't cry. She didn't act out in any way. She just said, 'No, my name means Egyptian goddess.'" >>

Tell me what kind of yabbo would say that to a child? Any child. And Riordan has to have known better than to say it out loud even if he did think it. The man is an experienced politician for crying out loud! He knows people are listening to what he says.

And for Arnold to say Riordan "would never knowingly or intentionally upset a child"... Huh? What person in his or her right mind would think such a comment wouldn't hurt a child?
If either one of them has any decency Riordan would have resigned before the end of the day.

And I kind of like the name Isis. When she has children she can name one either Isidore (male) or Isadora (female). Both names mean "gift of the goddess Isis." Pretty cool, eh?
 
Riordan and Arnold are close friends so I don't see him losing his position unless he steps down voluntarily. Arnold is already making excuses for him and trying to downplay the incident. I've seen it on tape for the life of me can't figure out what possesed him to say something that stupid to a little kid...he looked like a complete jackass.
 
indra said:
<< Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who named the 74-year-old Riordan to his Cabinet, issued a stern statement calling his appointee's remark "unacceptable in any context." But Schwarzenegger went on to say that Riordan "would never knowingly or intentionally upset a child.
Click to expand...
ah yes
I can see that :huh:
 
Klaus said:
Indra:
So Schwarzenegger simply told that Riordan is senile, insensitive or stupid? ;)
Click to expand...

ha! i was just going to make that point- the fact that he unknowingly insults a child is damn scary too.

the whole "unknowing" card is ridiculous.
in what reality is calling a child "stupid & dirty" not an insult? :huh: :down: b:censored:t
 
I'm not defending him AT ALL, but the only possible excuse I can think of is that he might have early stage Alzheimers- if people in that stage make inappropriate comments like that
 
I can't imagine what was going through his mind before he said that? :down:

HOWEVER, before everyone beats their chest in moral outrage and righteous indignation, consider the standard you are now setting.

Will the standard be: If a politician makes any offensive statement, whether intentional or not, they must be removed from office? Does it only apply to small children?

What kind of speech police do you want? Or do we do this on a case-by-case basis (making it ripe for partisian politics).
 
nbcrusader said:
I can't imagine what was going through his mind before he said that? :down:

HOWEVER, before everyone beats their chest in moral outrage and righteous indignation, consider the standard you are now setting.

Will the standard be: If a politician makes any offensive statement, whether intentional or not, they must be removed from office? Does it only apply to small children?

What kind of speech police do you want? Or do we do this on a case-by-case basis (making it ripe for partisian politics).
Click to expand...

I think that the fact that he's a head of education and that it was a child, warrants a little more concern.
 
There is no two ways around this one.
There's something sick going on in the mind of someone who says something that vile to a little child. Pick on someone your own size, asshole.

To address the "step down every time something objectionable is said" boondoggle -- an example:

Letting a curse word slip in front of a little kid while talking to someone else -- okay, that's an oops, you apologize, you take the heat, life goes on.

This situation was nothing of the sort -- Either this guy has dementia or Tourette's, or he is just really, really, really disgusting -- either way he should resign his position NOW.
 
nbcrusader said:
I can't imagine what was going through his mind before he said that? :down:

HOWEVER, before everyone beats their chest in moral outrage and righteous indignation, consider the standard you are now setting.

Will the standard be: If a politician makes any offensive statement, whether intentional or not, they must be removed from office? Does it only apply to small children?

What kind of speech police do you want? Or do we do this on a case-by-case basis (making it ripe for partisian politics).
Click to expand...
___________________________________
This is called a 'slippery slope' argument:
Description of Slippery Slope

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
Examples of Slippery Slope

1. "We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"

2. "The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die."

3. "You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you."

4. "We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"

*5. "If we force Riordan to resign over this, next we'll be appointing speech police and forcing public figures to step down over ANYTHING offensive!"
__________________________________
Look at how ridiculous that is.
Demanding this person resign his post over this specific issue does not automatically set in stone any such standard or precedent, and to suggest it does so is heavyhanded at best and dishonest at worst.

Look at the case of the Canadian woman forced to step down for her off-mic comments re America - no great moral struggle over setting precedent there, eh?

Cut the wide-angle lens crap. This is about one man's foul mouth and terrible judgement.
 
sue4u2 said:
Don't worry, someone who acts that way towards a child or anyone for that matter, will do themselves in eventually. Give him time he'll get his ownself kicked out of office.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that he is appointed, not elected.... :| unless Ah-nuld has the intestinal fortitude to do what's right and fire him, or he steps down, nothing changes.

That said, I hope the guy goes for a neurological exam, pronto. Completely inappropriate outbursts like that are often signs of impending senile dementia disorders such as Alzheimers and the like. :|
At 74, he's at the typical age of onset if there's a family history.
 
Last edited:
wolfeden said:
Look at how ridiculous that is.
Demanding this person resign his post over this specific issue does not automatically set in stone any such standard or precedent, and to suggest it does so is heavyhanded at best and dishonest at worst.
Click to expand...

A little research would show you that the "slippery slope" argument is often used when arguing constitutional rights cases.

Shall we act on principle or do we get to pick and choose who gets to be the subject of the witch hunt?

As for setting precedents, responses to action of political figures are often duplicated for others. To suggest that demanding Riordan's resignation will have no impact on other politicians in the future is simply ignorant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
The Little stranger chapter 1
Replies
0
Views
979
annj
A
A
The little stranger chapter 10
Replies
0
Views
675
annj
A
A
The little stranger Chapter 6
Replies
0
Views
550
annj
A
lharper
Innocent Experience - Chapter 6
Replies
3
Views
1K
lharper
lharper
youvedonewhat
Diaries Part 6.
Replies
2
Views
1K
lharper
lharper

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom