New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Re: Luther
in reply to a message by Bear
I dislike it, as anything except as an occasional nickname( for names with applicable meaning or phonetics.) Its derivation is rather dull, and the Martin Luther/ Martin Luther King Jr. associations are repellant.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
and...
you think his public speaking brought him "notoriety"? I hope that you were simply misusing that word.
you think his public speaking brought him "notoriety"? I hope that you were simply misusing that word.
1
It wouldn't matter to me AT ALL. Anything he did in his private life, that may be considered wrong by some, such as not adhering to the monogamous ideal endorsed by religion and society, is positively DWARFED by his monumental achievements in the field of civil rights. I would have no problem whatsoever with my child being "saddled" with his association.
1
King is an overhyped plastic god of a character, exaggerated into perfection by the ignorant and gullible. Essentially all that he did was capitalize on white guilt and use racial inequality for profit. Neither his PhD nor his position as a minister can retroactively be considered valid- due to the way in which more than half of his works including "Stride towards Freedom," "The Place of Reason and Experience in Finding God," are almost completely plagiarized as ruled by both Boston University and Crozer Theological Seminary. What he did was cheat his way into a PhD to further his political agenda, as it would doubtless give him the appearance of an education, and make him dissimilar from the blacks he would then proceed to use. Documents provided by the FBI prove that King was using funding from the SCLC to hire prostitutes, which I do not see as being a very significant contribution to any form of civil rights, and clearly indicate that he was taking advantage of his position. I claim that his speeches were notorious because they were- everywhere he went violence followed, regardless of the pretense of peaceful resistance; It is clear that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have been passed anyways, as racial discrimination was undeniably unconstitutional, and so the only thing that Mr. King effectively did was use the situation to his personal advantage. I'm fairly certain that you, in your ignorant bliss will disregard this entirely, choosing your rose coloured perspective concocted for your pleasure by racial supremacists and bigots who choose to eschew historical fact for the delights of fiction, so I think I'll leave you to the comfort of your fabricated worldview as only an imbecile would deny reality to such an extent and only such an imbecile would fail to see reason. Repost when you learn how to use quotation marks and caps lock.
1
No one is saying that Martin Luther King was perfect. They were only saying that, whether you agree with him or not, he is best known as a leader in the Civil Rights Movement.
In my honest opinion, I anyone who is able to bring up as many reasons to be against anyone as a person seems to have a chip on their shoulder or a personal vendetta against the above mentioned person. You come off as the racist and bigot here.
Algernon, I can be stubborn and set in my opinion as well, so please try not to take this too personally. I think that this discussion is going nowhere good, so we all need to just ignore it and let the conversation end.
In my honest opinion, I anyone who is able to bring up as many reasons to be against anyone as a person seems to have a chip on their shoulder or a personal vendetta against the above mentioned person. You come off as the racist and bigot here.
Algernon, I can be stubborn and set in my opinion as well, so please try not to take this too personally. I think that this discussion is going nowhere good, so we all need to just ignore it and let the conversation end.
1
why would anyone spend their time pursuing an anti-MLK agenda??!?!
insane
insane
This message was edited 2/15/2010, 6:56 PM
1
On the contrary, madam, I have no such agenda. I am merely recounting a series of facts that would clearly indicate that my viewpoint is more substantiated by data than are those of those who are disagreeing without support and insulting me without grounds to do so.
1
Algernon, Algernon, Algernon. It was you who threw the first insults. I made a post declaring that I don't care that King was a womanizer, that I respect his achievements in the field of civil rights, and that I would not mind a child of mine bearing a name honoring him. There was nothing personal directed at you. I called you no names. I indulged in no insults. I simply made a post that presented a differing opinion than yours.
You responded by calling me an imbecile.
Now you are crying that people are "insulting me without grounds to do so."
This illustrates the fact that you are the one being hypocritical here. You called me a hypocrite in a post further below. Look in the mirror if you want to see a hypocrite. It is you, not I.
Also, the fact that a differing opinion, nothing more, nothing less, would elicit such a vitriolic response leads one to the conclusion that you do indeed have an illogical and overemotional vendetta of some sort against Dr. King. Well, at the end of the day, he is still a greatly beloved and revered public figure. His birthday is a holiday. You are someone who uses a post asking about Luther, which happens to be his middle name, as an excuse to insult him on a message board, under protection of a pseudonym.
You responded by calling me an imbecile.
Now you are crying that people are "insulting me without grounds to do so."
This illustrates the fact that you are the one being hypocritical here. You called me a hypocrite in a post further below. Look in the mirror if you want to see a hypocrite. It is you, not I.
Also, the fact that a differing opinion, nothing more, nothing less, would elicit such a vitriolic response leads one to the conclusion that you do indeed have an illogical and overemotional vendetta of some sort against Dr. King. Well, at the end of the day, he is still a greatly beloved and revered public figure. His birthday is a holiday. You are someone who uses a post asking about Luther, which happens to be his middle name, as an excuse to insult him on a message board, under protection of a pseudonym.
1
psst
lastworditis
he's a troll
lastworditis
he's a troll
1
You always crack me up. Okay.
1
wait
So, you hate Martin Luther King Jr. That much is pretty clear. Do you also hate black people and begrudge them their civil rights? I think this may be why people are getting upset - they are assuming you are racist because of your apologetic contempt for a man that embodies the freedom of African-American people (whether he had a perfect character or not, this we must admit).
Your arguments are well-phrased but are coming across as a thinly veiled, highly intellectualized statement of racism (yes, we can see how smart you are, or think yourself to be), which is most likely why people are responding to you harshly.
So, you hate Martin Luther King Jr. That much is pretty clear. Do you also hate black people and begrudge them their civil rights? I think this may be why people are getting upset - they are assuming you are racist because of your apologetic contempt for a man that embodies the freedom of African-American people (whether he had a perfect character or not, this we must admit).
Your arguments are well-phrased but are coming across as a thinly veiled, highly intellectualized statement of racism (yes, we can see how smart you are, or think yourself to be), which is most likely why people are responding to you harshly.
This message was edited 2/15/2010, 7:31 PM
1
The post is in reference to the name Luther, and my opinion thereof. Because the name has connotations with such deplorable characters it is part of my opinion on the name. I do not care about race. I do not care about civil rights. I do not care about people. I am very amused by how well people are reacting to my comment- all I am trying to do is to defend my opinion of a name. I did not realize that a forum of onomasts would be so replete with people who simply cannot read an argument as it is intended to be.
1
So....
"I do not care about civil rights."
"I do not care about people."
Thank you for further justifying my already quite negative opinion of you.
"I do not care about civil rights."
"I do not care about people."
Thank you for further justifying my already quite negative opinion of you.
1
Repost when "anyways" becomes standard, proper English.
1
Right...........
please crawl back into whatever hole you came from. But thanks for replying to my post.
please crawl back into whatever hole you came from. But thanks for replying to my post.
1
It was a simple request, and yet it seems the subtlety of punctuation eludes you yet. It would appear that you are well and truly a lost cause. It's good to know you are unable to substantiate or quantify any of your claims, and likely unable to hold a coherent thought in your feeble mind. How wonderful that we didn't have to resort to pettiness to clarify your worthlessness as individual to you.
1
You do realize that you haven't substantiated your claims, either, don't you? You did not formally cite any sources ("Boston University proved this" and "the FBI found that" don't cut it) and as such it cannot be determined if your assertions are valid. Furthermore, you explicitly dismiss those who disagree with you on the basis of an alleged "inability" to use caps lock, quotation marks, and punctuation. I find this particularly amusing as your own sentences are meandering, your comma use is inconsistent, and your grammar is imperfect.
This message was edited 2/15/2010, 7:23 PM
1
Sources:
1. The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.- - (an official publication of the Martin Luther King Center for Nonviolent Social Change).
2. "King's Plagiarism: Imitation, Insecurity and Transformation," The Journal of American History, June 1991, p. 87) David J. Garrow
3. New York Times" of October 11, 1991, page 15.
4. "The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr.", David J. Garrow, (1981).
5. "And the walls came tumbling down," Rev. Ralph Abernathy (1989)
Substantial enough?
1. The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.- - (an official publication of the Martin Luther King Center for Nonviolent Social Change).
2. "King's Plagiarism: Imitation, Insecurity and Transformation," The Journal of American History, June 1991, p. 87) David J. Garrow
3. New York Times" of October 11, 1991, page 15.
4. "The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr.", David J. Garrow, (1981).
5. "And the walls came tumbling down," Rev. Ralph Abernathy (1989)
Substantial enough?
1
I don't question some of your facts. Those things that are facts, and not opinion or supposition. What I deny is the significance of your facts.
I was hoping someday to have a granddaughter. I've changed my mind. I hope to have a third grandson, and his middle name will be Luther. After you know who. Thanks for convincing me!
I was hoping someday to have a granddaughter. I've changed my mind. I hope to have a third grandson, and his middle name will be Luther. After you know who. Thanks for convincing me!
1
I love that you have this information at your fingertips. Do you troll forums hoping to get into Martin Luther King Jr. fights?
PS: what are your favourite names?
PS: what are your favourite names?
1
It took less than ten seconds to find. Anything will do on a Monday afternoon. This has been very amusing.
Top 5?
Male:
Algernon,
Damocles,
Orpheo,
Lorenzo,
St. John,
Female:
Ophelia,
Nova,
Vera,
Persephone,
Isidora
Top 5?
Male:
Algernon,
Damocles,
Orpheo,
Lorenzo,
St. John,
Female:
Ophelia,
Nova,
Vera,
Persephone,
Isidora
1
I don't like any of your male names. Algernon in particular is ridiculous, effete, and pretentious. St. John is quite pretentious.
I like Ophelia, Vera, and Persephone. I can't get behind the IZ sound in Isadora, though. Nova is awful.
I like Ophelia, Vera, and Persephone. I can't get behind the IZ sound in Isadora, though. Nova is awful.
1
Please
refrain from personal attacks, which are otherwise known as "flaming." Check the board rules - you have broken them.
refrain from personal attacks, which are otherwise known as "flaming." Check the board rules - you have broken them.
1
Congratulations sir, you have caught me in the act. My apologies for being such an impolite troll. Your forum is truly a hilarious place to inflame, I will be sure to recommend it to my friends in the future. Thank you for your vigilance. Is there any form of atonement you would appreciate or should I simply delete my account?
1
I guess it's up to mirfak to say, but personally, I'd vote for deleting your account.
1
oh oops
1
you're an idiot
1
Well,
I'd prefer some form of actual refutation instead of childish namecalling, but I no longer expect any form of logic from this forum. If you truly cannot say anything, do not waste your time being so presumptuous.
I'd prefer some form of actual refutation instead of childish namecalling, but I no longer expect any form of logic from this forum. If you truly cannot say anything, do not waste your time being so presumptuous.
1
A true mark of one who knows his or her arguments are feeble, hateful, and prejudicial, is that this one will immediately, upon meeting with any resistance whatsoever to their Neanderthal views, resort to petty and personal insults.
Oh, and I haven't misused capitals. I have USED them for EMPHASIS. Nor have I failed to use punctuation. Thanks for your attention to this matter.
Oh, and I haven't misused capitals. I have USED them for EMPHASIS. Nor have I failed to use punctuation. Thanks for your attention to this matter.
1
Irony at its finest
Ah, me, what has the world come to when every fool's insults are so idiotically self-referential. Does the phrase "conditional clause" mean nothing to you? The way you attack foreign opinions is utterly shameful, you should be mortified by your hypocrisy. I resent being stereotyped as just another troll who is hateful and prejudiced as you, I was merely presenting truths you have not seen fit to refute with logic. The fact of the matter remains that you have neither the means nor the will to substantiate your own beliefs in such matters and likely subsist on the same informational refuse as you always have, and always will. I see no further point in attempting to correct your ways. On this note, I will leave you to your fabrications.
Ah, me, what has the world come to when every fool's insults are so idiotically self-referential. Does the phrase "conditional clause" mean nothing to you? The way you attack foreign opinions is utterly shameful, you should be mortified by your hypocrisy. I resent being stereotyped as just another troll who is hateful and prejudiced as you, I was merely presenting truths you have not seen fit to refute with logic. The fact of the matter remains that you have neither the means nor the will to substantiate your own beliefs in such matters and likely subsist on the same informational refuse as you always have, and always will. I see no further point in attempting to correct your ways. On this note, I will leave you to your fabrications.
1
1. I have the will and I have the means. I am choosing not to employ them at this time, because I don't consider the opinions section of a names site the appropriate place to do so. When I made my initial response to you, I did not at all expect the type of response that you saw fit to make. I didn't want to really debate the issue here, again, because I don't consider it the appropriate place. Neither did I wish for you to think that I concurred in your opinion, however. That's why I have responded the way that I have. Namely, I have let you know that I consider your opinion disgraceful, without going into the details of why I do.
2. You have attacked my opinion, which is as foreign to you as yours is to me, to a greater degree than I have attacked yours.
3. You have no cause to call me a hypocrite, just as you have none to call me hateful and prejudiced.
4. I have fabricated nothing.
2. You have attacked my opinion, which is as foreign to you as yours is to me, to a greater degree than I have attacked yours.
3. You have no cause to call me a hypocrite, just as you have none to call me hateful and prejudiced.
4. I have fabricated nothing.
1
I personally would never use a name if it had a very strong association, regardless of whether it was a good or a bad one. I would never name a child Luther because regardless of whether Martin Luther King Jr. was my greatest role model or not, the name Luther just immediately draws attention to him. For example, one may love Miley Cyrus but would never want to name her child Miley because there is just such a strong association with that name, and even if she loves Miley Cyrus, the name will always have the association which can be annoying at times, despite whether it is a good or bad association.
1
I can understand that, but that's not what Algernon said.
1
.
This message was edited 2/16/2010, 8:07 AM
1
Indeed it is not, kindly learn to read.
1
This response made no sense whatsoever. You are agreeing with me about what your post did NOT say, and then advising me to learn to read? I advise you to brush up on reading comprehension.
1
The implication of the statement was to address the poster to which you were responding, not you, with illiteracy and a lack of basic reasoning skills, although apparently I should consider extending that to you as well.
1
Here's how the board works, Algernon. When you wish to respond to a poster, you post directly underneath his or her post. That is how the board works. So if you wanted to respond to the poster to whom I was responding, you should have posted directly beneath her response. It would have appeared above mind, if you had done that. That is how the board works, and that is what everyone expects. Therefore, when a post is made directly underneath another post, everyone assumes that that post is in response to the one it is underneath. When a poster, such as yourself, makes the mistake of replying to a post to which you didn't really mean to reply, the accusation of lack of basic reasoning skills should not be made to the person who made the initial post, but to the person who, like yourself, *made the mistake.*
1