So, let's see. When you disagree with what someone is saying, as thus far all of you obviously do here, you can criticize the argument on the merits, or you can attack the person him/herself. Which do you think is both more effective and is the mode of argument accepted by civilization for thousands of years? (I know, it's hard to tell these days, as standard argument in this nation has become an absolute travesty, but still...).
So, I disagree with what thrylos is saying, but I can at least acknowledge that his argument has some merit. Indeed, no one here would argue that persons of African descent in this nation could reasonably take umbrage at being referred to as "property". Right? That seems to be a settled notion, given our nation's terrible history regarding chattel slavery.
However, I disagree that Bremer was referring to that. It's not unusual, for instance, to see all sorts of folks wearing clothing items (especially shirts) with phrases such as "Property of the Minnesota Vikings," etc. It's actually rather common, and it's an accepted colloquialism. Frankly, it probably should not be. The phrase has a terrible connotation to it, and could be rightfully offensive to any number of people. But it is what it is and it was a minor mistake for Bremer to have said it, even though it was most likely unintentional and not freighted with the meaning that thrylos attributes it.
So settle down. [Edit to correct: Agree] Disagree with the idea, not the person. This item in particular wasn't terribly hard to deconstruct, and the whole forum will be a much better place for all if we stick to the merits of an argument and refrain from personal attacks.
Edited by deanlambrecht, 13 August 2012 - 09:57 PM.