Drunk Driving

I like the addition of “bitch.” You’ve commented on her appearance and judged her personality. You show keen insight for someone looking at a photo.

As someone else in this thread said, the whole POINT is her looks. Otherwise she’s just a “nobody”.

I thought the point is that she’s survived an awful accident and her looks are merely a shocking physical representation of what can happen to someone else if you drink and drive. Her looks are a symbol; they’re critical to the message, but not the entire one.

I guess I was wrong, that we’re only defined by our appearances, not by our actions or what we stand for.

“Bitch” is a traditional holdover from counteracting romanticism.

Now that’s funny. C’mon, you’re really Erik trolling, right?

What she is is a hideously burned woman.

No, she’s an ugly bitch.

She’s ugly because she’s burned, and a bitch because, well… we have some romantic notion that a burned woman is beautiful, hence the need to counteract it by calling her a bitch. Is that about right?

I personally would be better off if that was a picture of a man, given that I take pleasure from beautiful women and displeasure from ugly women.

You old softie, you. I bet the chicks dig you “being real” like this. You should walk up to people and say, “Hey, you’re one ugly bitch.” I’m sure they’ll appreciate it.

Maybe you can offer to light her on fire so she’ll be beautiful.

The point is there is no insight possible from a photo other than physical appearance.

I thought it was more of a shocking physical representation of what can happen in a fire… it was coincidental that drinking and driving was involved… it could just as easily have been from a house fire. I would think showing a mangled corpse might be better (and more logical since far more humans end up as mangled corpses than end up like that woman) if you want to promote safe driving, unless you take the somewhat pathological approach that this woman is worse off than a mangled corpse. Although of course corpses don’t often have the personality to be featured in books and such.

Do you show your actions and what you stand for by presenting a photo of yourself? Or do you present a photo of yourself because you want someone to see what you look like?

Her claim to fame IS her looks. I’m not talking about “us”, I’m talking about HER. And I’m not talking about her personally. For all I know she’s a fine person with some intriguing skills (though likely diminished after the burning). Or maybe she’s a psychopath. Whatever. But Publically, per her persona in books and the like… her “Claim to Fame” is based on her looks.

“Bitch” is a traditional holdover from counteracting romanticism.

Calling someone a bitch in that context is anti-romantic. That was its usage the first time. Then it became “traditional”… following along the same lines in the same context, even after its importance as “anti-romantic” fades.

What she is is a hideously burned woman.

“Default” versus “Anti-romantic”… only tradition (linking the thread/theme) holds me to the latter currently.

Not exactly. Romantics compensate for a weakness falsely. So a romantic sees a burned woman as “holy” or “good”… by the supposed logic of Equality. Romantics DO see the burned as a weakness, but to them that just proves that she compensates elsewhere. Of course no actual proof is ever needed for them to think this. It also allows them to avoid discomfort or disgust since they take comfort in their own notion of compensation.

My “she is what she is” and promotion of Realism and calling her an “ugly bitch” is a direct attack upon Romanticism… it is to say that NO, she does not have built-in compensation that allows her to retain her “quality” after the incident. Unlike Romanticism which by its very nature disallows Tragedy, Realism understands that bad things (or at least unfortunate things) can and do happen.

I personally would be better off if that was a picture of a man, given that I take pleasure from beautiful women and displeasure from ugly women.

I’m unlikely to walk up to people who cause me displeasure, wouldn’t you say? :idea:

All I really want is to destroy Romanticism. For humans to look at that woman and not compensate for the ugliness they see by inventing things “inside” her that they do not know exist. For humans to see Tragedy as not something to be balanced with Illusion, but rather as a Reality all its own.

Other than that she’s apparently a bitch.

Didn’t the article provide the context? Didn’t the message accompanying provide context? Did you miss the “Don’t Drink and Drive” banner across the top of the page, or the “Not Everyone Who Gets His by a Drunk Driver Dies” on the ad?

I thought it was more of a shocking physical representation of what can happen in a fire… it was coincidental that drinking and driving was involved…

Sure, and should could be a poster child for car fires. Didn’t someone say they sued Ford? Had Ford not paid up, you could put her picture there and say, “Unsecured Fuel Tanks Are Bad.” And bingo, you have context.

Do you show your actions and what you stand for by presenting a photo of yourself? Or do you present a photo of yourself because you want someone to see what you look like?

Jeez, it depends on what actions I’m doing or message I’m trying to convey. If I’m standing up for the rights of people who wear glasses, maybe I’ll present a photo of myself.

You’re treating this woman’s photo as if it’s the equivalent of a personal ad. In that context, we judge someone solely by their looks because, duh, that’s the point.

And I’m not talking about her personally.

So calling her a “bitch” isn’t a comment on her personality? Why doesn’t referring to her as “ugly” satisfy your bizarre desire to “destroy romanticism?”

Calling someone a bitch in that context is anti-romantic.

Calling her ugly is anti-romantic, since the romantic view is “She’s still beautiful on the inside.” Calling her a bitch brings up a whole, “You seem to have a problem with women” angle.

I’m unlikely to walk up to people who cause me displeasure, wouldn’t you say? :idea:

So you never go outdoors? You never get helped in stores by, God forbid, an ugly woman? What about people on the phone? Do you ask for a photo before interacting with them? And people posting here might be ugly.

All I really want is to destroy Romanticism.

I bet the chicks dig that approach.

I’d say this thread calls for a picture of Brian Koontz and his Our Gang inspired he-man woman haters club.

I am certain he would appreciate all of us chiming in with comments of what an ugly bastard he is. All in the spirit of the anti-humanistic/romantic call for ruling out sympathy for idiots.

“As someone else in this thread said, the whole POINT is her looks. Otherwise she’s just a “nobody”.”

Don’t twist my words.

What the hell is going on in here?

We’re letting Brian Koontz work through some serious woman-hating issues. We’re really close to a breakthrough.

Group hug time.

I’ll repeat myself by saying that “bitch” is Anti-Romantic and that is its meaning in that context.

All of that says nothing at all about her other than the generic details of the tragedy.

What does Ford paying or not paying have anything to do with anything? Unsecured Fuel Tanks are only bad if Ford doesn’t pay victims? Besides, if they “didn’t pay” then that means they won in court, which ostensibly is worthy of respect.

Again, showing mangled corpses is a more effective method of symbolizing the tragic effects of drunk driving since that is a much more frequent result of drunk driving then ending up hideously ugly from burns. Its difficult to associate drunk driving with the woman precisely because so few humans associated with drunk driving end up like her. Now, if they got together say… TWENTY people like her all of whom resulted from drunk driving accidents… that would be much more powerful.

Her claim to fame (whether you want to call “claims to fame” personal or not is up to you) is being hideously burned and not dying (which might as well have occurred in a house fire), which is proven most directly by her face. Her face enables the website, her face enables the book telling her story, her face…

This parallels the story of the killer rats. The rats might have lived for years without killing people. Noone cared. Their “claim to fame” is maiming humans, killing humans, and killing the pets of humans. This earns them articles and discussions among humans. I suppose you must be pleased with “animal rights” in this matter because after all, we are not judging these rats based on their looks.

You’re kinda slow, huh? When I already said that the whole point is that her photo ONLY expresses her looks, how am I supposed to comment on her personality?

I assume you mean why DOES, and working off that assumption…

Calling her ugly is realistic. A romantic wouldn’t call her ugly, on (once again) the assumed romantic premise that ugly humans compensate in other ways (by being beautiful on the inside, commonly).

I’m saying that they don’t compensate, and therefore Tragedy is valid. Humans learn and that woman is likely different (in non-physical ways) after her burning, and maybe is even a better human in non-physical ways after her burning, but there is no good assumption that states that this proposed improvement is compensation for the physical devastation.

No… the romantic view is that she gains beauty on the inside to compensate for the loss of beauty on the outside. That’s why a woman who was never called “good” or “holy” BEFORE being burned is suddenly honored and called “good” and “holy” AFTER being burned.

To a Romantic, there is no such thing as Tragedy.

No it doesn’t, you are bringing up such an angle and are using Spin Doctor stuff.

“Bitch” might mean 10 different things, depending on context. You, who favor one particular usage (hatred of women) are imposing your favoritism upon the material.

I treat ugly women as I do men… that is without sexual interest.

Women like the one under consideration are disgusting prior to a level of familiarity by which I would gain comfort and security. The same goes for men in that regard.

People on the phone and here have physical relevance insofar as it affects their identity, by which is transmitted what they talk about, how they talk about it, what attitudes they have, etc. Physical status is highly underappreciated when it comes to the internet (for example, what William X (assuming he is legit) talks about on the internet is different from what you talk about).

There is more than one meaning for “Romantic”. Romantic candlelight dinners have very little if anything in common with the kind of Romanticism I’ve been talking about in this thread.

Nevertheless the chicks still dig it, you sly dog.

When I think of drink driving I always love this piece of transcript from the High Court of Australia (that’s the final court of appeal). Basically, a guy and girl get pissed, decide to drive to the nearest takeaway, the guy starts driving, realises that he won’t make it, hands over to the girl, who promptly smashes, and then sues the guy for letting her drive. The bit below is an absolute classic.

CALLINAN J: Mr Jackson, it seems to me that clearly the people at the party, including Ms Joslyn and Mr Berryman, went out with the intention of getting drunk.

MR JACKSON: It would be a big night, your Honour, big night.

CALLINAN J: With the intention of getting drunk and they fulfilled that intention.

MR JACKSON: Well, your Honour, young people sometimes - - -

KIRBY J: I just think “drunk” is a label and I am a little worried about - it is not necessary to put that label. It is just that they were sufficiently affected by alcohol to affect their capacity to drive.

MR JACKSON: Yes.

KIRBY J: “A drunk” has all sorts of baggage with it.

HAYNE J: Perhaps “hammered” is the more modern expression, Mr Jackson, or “well and truly hammered”.

MR JACKSON: I am indebted to your Honour.

KIRBY J: I do not know any of these expressions.

McHUGH J: No, no. Justice Hayne must live a very different life to the sort of life we lead.

KIRBY J: I have never heard that word “hammered” before, never. Not before this very minute.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/hca/transcripts/2002/S122/1.html

If anything good is to come out of this, it’s that Koontz might learn that he can troll with only two words (such as “ugly bitch”), rather than deplete our brain cells with his rambling treatises.

It’s all in the timing, baby.

I have my own two-word answer to Koontz’ “ugly bitch” comment: unnecessary cruelty.

I think you’d be more persuasive if you capitalized more Words, because it sounds more like Philosophy.

I think you’d be more persuasive if you capitalized more Words, because it sounds more like Philosophy.[/quote]

The vast majority of philosophy uses standard grammar. Nice thought, though. I’ve also been writing this way for the past 8 years, but I’m sure you knew that.