How much immorality is too much?

  • Thread starter Thread starter smswife
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jmcrae said:
It is? :confused: I always thought it was a reference to the hair gel used by boys and young men in the 1950s, together with their attitude of “nobody tells me what to do!” as they race their cars up and down the streets. I didn’t realize it had anything to do with race.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on where you live. Where I grew up (L.A.) it was used commonly in the 60s (and maybe earlier but I wouldn’t remember) and then it was kinda replaced by other equally derogatory terms but I can guarantee that if one calls a hispanic person a “greaser” there is going to be lots of trouble. There was a huge fight on my high school campus between what were called “surfers” (obviously white) and well, I can’t type the word but the fight was so bad it turned into a riot and was on the news that night.

I looked like I belonged to either group so I wasn’t bothered during that fight.

I didn’t know “greaser” meant anything other than what I’d heard it used for. :confused:
 
edwest2 said:
Wow. Where did you get that weird definition? A Greaser was anyone who wore their hair in a pompadore style and used greasy hair creme to keep it in place, along with a leather jacket. Please stop assuming things.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
The definition I have is no more weird than yours, if you are calling people with “pompadore” hair and leather jackets “greasers.”

Where did I get it? I got it the same way most kids get their definitions - on the streets, where I learned all the derogatory terms (and the facts of life). I grew up and worked in an area in which people with numerous ethnic backgrounds reside.

I asked you a question and you answered it and for that I thank you. But you couldn’t let it go, could you? You had to toss in that dig at the end:

“Please stop assuming things.”

What did I assume? If I had assumed that you were referring to people of Hispanic descent I wouldn’t have asked the question in the first place.

Please tell me what I assumed. I am expecting a response to this. I’m sure you have one - oops, that’s an assumption. Sorry. I hope you have a response to this and I am expecting a response.
 
jmcrae said:
And again, I still have no idea why anyone would think of doing that, knife fight or not.

In what sense would a person of Mexican descent be considered a “greaser”?

Do they put gel in their hair? Do they drive fast cars? Do they say disrespectful things to women? Do they wear numbered leather jackets decked out in their school colors? Do they say “Ya know” a lot? 🤷
Click to expand...
I believe it is a reference to the way they cook their food. A lot of it is fried. Ergo, cooked in grease.

Specifically, tortillas are heated on a grill. And people of Hispanic descent usually eat a lot of tortillas, for which I don’t blame them. Mexican food and I mean real Mexican food (Yo no quiero Taco Bell!) is wonderful. Take a couple of warm corn tortillas, put some bits of meat (you might want to stay away from some of it, like heads and tongues) on them, add some cut up onion and a heap of cilantro and it’s like heaven.

Fried ice cream is also very, very good. I recommend that you try it.

“Greaser” is a stupid, ugly word when used in a racist sense.
 
I’ve got that song by Shenandoah called “I Wanna be Loved Like That” running through my mind:

“Natalie Wood gave her heart to James Dean,
high school rebel and a beauty queen,
standing together in an angry world,
one boy fighting for one girl.”

It’s actually my favorite country song. 🙂
 
LittleSoldier said:
The definition I have is no more weird than yours, if you are calling people with “pompadore” hair and leather jackets “greasers.”

Where did I get it? I got it the same way most kids get their definitions - on the streets, where I learned all the derogatory terms (and the facts of life). I grew up and worked in an area in which people with numerous ethnic backgrounds reside.

I asked you a question and you answered it and for that I thank you. But you couldn’t let it go, could you? You had to toss in that dig at the end:

“Please stop assuming things.”

What did I assume? If I had assumed that you were referring to people of Hispanic descent I wouldn’t have asked the question in the first place.

Please tell me what I assumed. I am expecting a response to this. I’m sure you have one - oops, that’s an assumption. Sorry. I hope you have a response to this and I am expecting a response.
Click to expand...
You got pretty worked up because you thought I was saying something I was not.

What was the point of the movie title Grease? It wasn’t about Hispanics. It was about guys I saw in the late 1950s and early 1960s that had greasy slicked back hair, OR, what was more common, an Elvis style pompadore that was held in place by the same greasy hair creme. Throw on a leather jacket and that - not a Hispanic - that was a Greaser, just like John Travolta in the movie which was set in the same time period I’m talking about. And I mention the movie to make it very clear that is what I mean when I say Greaser and that is exactly what everyone in the late 1950s called them.

I’m not talking about today or even 10 years ago.

Pardon me for any confusion.

Ed
 
edwest2 said:
You got pretty worked up because you thought I was saying something I was not.

What was the point of the movie title Grease? It wasn’t about Hispanics. It was about guys I saw in the late 1950s and early 1960s that had greasy slicked back hair, OR, what was more common, an Elvis style pompadore that was held in place by the same greasy hair creme. Throw on a leather jacket and that - not a Hispanic - that was a Greaser, just like John Travolta in the movie which was set in the same time period I’m talking about. And I mention the movie to make it very clear that is what I mean when I say Greaser and that is exactly what everyone in the late 1950s called them.

I’m not talking about today or even 10 years ago.

Pardon me for any confusion.

Ed
Click to expand...
Just one question, Ed, would you call a black guy the “N” word because it had an innocuous meaning in some contexts (e.g., among blacks), after it had been explained to you that many people find it violently offensive? Because this is no different.

This isn’t a movie, or a TV show Ed, and its not 1950. “Not everybody” used the term “greaser” in a friendly way. Its not a friendly word.
 
edwest2 said:
You got pretty worked up because you thought I was saying something I was not.

What was the point of the movie title Grease? It wasn’t about Hispanics. It was about guys I saw in the late 1950s and early 1960s that had greasy slicked back hair, OR, what was more common, an Elvis style pompadore that was held in place by the same greasy hair creme. Throw on a leather jacket and that - not a Hispanic - that was a Greaser, just like John Travolta in the movie which was set in the same time period I’m talking about. And I mention the movie to make it very clear that is what I mean when I say Greaser and that is exactly what everyone in the late 1950s called them.

I’m not talking about today or even 10 years ago.

Pardon me for any confusion.

Ed
Click to expand...
Now you are making assumptions. I was not “worked up.” I asked you what you meant. I gave you the opportunity to explain what you meant. If I had assumed you meant people of Hispanic descent I wouldn’t have bothered to ask you what you meant. Do you see the problem? When one assumes something, one does not ask questions about that assumption. What would be the point?:

So - I did not assume anything.

I don’t remember you mentioning the movie Grease until now. If you did mention it, please provide the post number.

Oh wow!! Here is another assumption: “…that is exactly what everyone in the late 1950s called them.” How would you know that? You can’t know that. Where I grew up a "gr…no I think it’s a horribly ugly word and I won’t post it, but Hispanics were subjected to a lot of discrimination. They still are.

And I’m surprised that you watched the movie as it’s chock full of immorality. And that brings us full circle back to the topic of this thread which is:

How Much Immorality is Too Much?

Is Grease an immoral movie? Wasn’t there a scene where John Travolta’s character displayed a certain physical movement asssociated with sexual intercourse? What about Olivia Newton John’s character? She changed from being a sweet girl who wore skirts that covered her knees into a dancer wearing skin-tight, cleavage-showing clothes.

I’m interested in what people think about this.

P.S. I do pardon you, Ed. My faith demands it. But I wish we could get along better because we post a lot in the same threads.
 
Reservoir_Dog said:
Just one question, Ed, would you call a black guy the “N” word because it had an innocuous meaning in some contexts (e.g., among blacks), after it had been explained to you that many people find it violently offensive? Because this is no different.

This isn’t a movie, or a TV show Ed, and its not 1950. “Not everybody” used the term “greaser” in a friendly way. Its not a friendly word.
Click to expand...
I have a neighbor who uses the “n” word. He’d say, “Hey n*****!!” and then laugh his silly head off. When I asked him to not use that word in my home he said that he grew up with blacks (he’s white) so it’s OK for him to use that word.

I haven’t spoken to him for a long time and I have no intention of ever speaking to him again. What he did tainted my home. He didn’t even have enough respect for me to stop using that term in my presence, in my own home.

And he can’t understand why I felt it was inappropriate for him to use that term. To him it’s just a big joke. That word is the ugliest word in the English language as far as I’m concerned.
 
LittleSoldier said:
Unfortunately, obtaining an annulment in the United States is about as easy as falling off a log. Maybe even easier.
Click to expand...
Hello LittleSoldier,

From my own experience, there is nothing “easy” about it and by saying such things, you seem to be impugning the motivation, competence, and honesty of all of us who are involved in such cases.

Thank you for your time.

Dan
 
Reservoir_Dog said:
OK, I’m well past the point where racial epithets on the internet make enough of an impression on me past an attempt to correct more than once. So I’m ending this conversation with you and Ed.

In the interests of Christian charity, don’t call Mexican Americans “greasers”. Its considered a racial epithet. Or, try it in a place where you can’t play word games like this and see what happens.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t even think of it - that’s my whole point. 🙂

If I wanted to get into a knife fight for some reason, there are other words I’d think of using, but “greaser” isn’t one of them. 🤷
 
dans0622 said:
Hello LittleSoldier,

From my own experience, there is nothing “easy” about it and by saying such things, you seem to be impugning the motivation, competence, and honesty of all of us who are involved in such cases.

Thank you for your time.

Dan
Click to expand...
Dear Dan,

I love the Church. Following God is the most important thing in my life and I believe the Church was founded by Jesus.

But there are problems with people who are members of the Church. All of us. We lie, we cheat, we steal, and some of us accept bribes to let an annulment go through.

I provided a source to back up my claims. You have no source, just weak anecdotal evidence. It’s not showing respect to the Church and to God to deny that there is a problem with the approval of annulments in the United States.

The Pope, just as John Paul II, is aware of the situation and is not at all happy with what is going on. Maybe you should send him an email explaining that from your own experience," there is nothing “easy about it” and that in his disapproval over the current system he seems to be “impugning the motivation, competence, and honesty of all of us who are involved in such cases.”

Your annulment was difficult to obtain and somehow that means that all annulments are difficult to obtain. Is this what you are saying? I want to be sure I understand you.

Also, I never said anything about the people who are obtaining the annulments. I was pointing out that annulments are remarkably easy to obtain in the United States. That is certainly not the fault of those who need annulments - it’s the fault of those who grant them without investigation, as a simple matter of course, and especially those who pocket a bribe.

I don’t want you to be offended by something I wrote, especially because most of my post was a quote. I’ve been reading about this scandal for some time now.

Do you think we should just let things go on as they are? Do you think it’s acceptable to bribe a Church official in order to obtain an annulment? Do you think that Church officials do not sin?

Please read my post again. Did you read what I quoted? Please read that again and note especially the areas I bolded.

There is someone I love very much. She was miserable in her “marriage” and a priest suggested that she apply for an annulment. Was it appropriate that she receive one? I don’t know because I don’t know if there was any marriage to begin with. However, I have defended her in front of mutual relatives who don’t understand that a “marriage” that never existed is not a marriage.

She is now married to a Catholic, and I see the joy of God once more in her eyes. She has been blessed with a husband who shows her a great amount of love and I have seen her family grow closer and happier.

What you’ve done is accuse me of something of which I am innocent. My concern is with those who grant annulments - not with people who need annulments.

I hope this clarifies my post. I’m glad that the system worked correctly in your case (as far as I know).

God bless.
 
jmcrae said:
I wouldn’t even think of it - that’s my whole point. 🙂

If I wanted to get into a knife fight for some reason, there are other words I’d think of using, but “greaser” isn’t one of them. 🤷
Click to expand...
If you were in certain parts of L.A. (I’m thinking of East L.A. in particular) and you used that term you would be running the risk of being stabbed whether you wanted to get into a knife fight or not. You would also be showing immense disrespect to fellow human beings.

With all due respect, your “point” is lost on me. Perhaps you should think of it (🙂 - what’s with that?) It’s good to know the derogatory terms that can get one into serious trouble. It’s also good to know the derogatory terms that one should not use if one is trying to show respect to people who become insulted by the use of such terms.

Are you trying to be funny? It’s not funny. Switchblades are not funny, neither are gangs and hospital ER’s full of gang members who have been stabbed and/or shot.

You seem to be holding onto this like a dog holds onto a rope to play “tug-a-war.” I’m surprised because I’ve read many of your posts and I’ve found you to be respectful in the past.

Please, stop using the word “greaser.” It is an offensive word and it hurts people.
 
Rese.rvoir Dog said:
Are you trying to be funny?
Click to expand...
It looks like her post was edited. I’m glad because the words she used were extremely offensive. “Spic?” That is a well-known nasty term. That would be a reportable offense. It’s extremely uncharitable.

I don’t know why she won’t let it go. Maybe it’s a game to her and she’s having fun. But it’s not funny at all. 😦
 
LittleSoldier said:
It looks like her post was edited. I’m glad because the words she used were extremely offensive. “Spic?” That is a well-known nasty term. That would be a reportable offense. It’s extremely uncharitable.

I don’t know why she won’t let it go. Maybe it’s a game to her and she’s having fun. But it’s not funny at all. 😦
Click to expand...
My only point is that Ed was never, ever thinking of Spanish-speaking people when he used the term, and for people of my generation, that term has absolutely nothing to do with speaking Spanish. I don’t know why you keep insisting that we are trying to insult Spanish-speaking people, when we have clearly explained that we are not.
 
LittleSoldier said:
What you’ve done is accuse me of something of which I am innocent. My concern is with those who grant annulments - not with people who need annulments.
Click to expand...
Hello again,

Thanks for the reply. In a manner of speaking, I am one of “those who grant annulments.” I have never sought nor attained a decree of nullity. To say that obtaining a decree of nullity is easier than falling off a log is quite an accusation for those of us in this “line of work.” Of course, there are mistakes, abuses, laxity, laziness, etc., since human beings are involved. If you have evidence of this, not to mention bribes, the place to go is the Apostolic Signatura, not these forums. I would wholeheartedly give you my support, such as it is, in taking your concerns there.

I will limit my response to these words, as this is off-topic. On the other hand, it is more on-topic than a discussion of derogotory terminology that is apparently directed toward Hispanics. :confused:

Dan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top