NationStates Jolt Archive

Well I am visiting home for the holidays. On Xmas Eve around 3pm I am bored so i go explore the green belt my city has built (basically a large extended park that cuts the city in half with a walk ways).
I was wishing everyone else out walking a merry Xmas. Then going the other wayis an old woman and her grandmother. She is wearing clothing that suggests she is Hindu. I elect in order to minimize offense to use happy holidays when greeting her. her grand daughter replies back with happy holidays and we both go our sepreate ways.


This had me thinking. This is Xmas Eve is it needed to use the term happy holidays on a day that is part of Xmas. Ive used it for the time of year in writing but never verbally before and never for the day it was. VErbally the term Happy holidays seems akward to me as well.

So my question is is it better to use Happy holidays to minimize offense on the day of the holiday? Or should i use Merry Xmas on the day and eve of the holiday?

I usually just say Merry Christmas.

I wouldn't expect a Muslim or Hindu to alter their terminology or phrasiology to preclude offence at Ramadan or Diwali, hence I see no reason to do the same and use "Happy Holidays".

Strikes me as something of an American convention, much like the utterly entertaining "differently-abled".

i said "Merry Christmas" to a rasta today, he said "One Love" back to me... i thought it was fine :)

"Happy Holidays" seems like an american invention to me. it is Christmas, and i'm celebrating it (although, of course, i'm not a christian... but that's a different issue). if a Hindu wanted to wish me a happy Pancha Ganapati or Diwali, i wouldn't be offended at all

I wouldn't expect a Muslim or Hindu to alter their terminology or phrasiology to preclude offence at Ramadan or Diwali, hence I see no reason to do the same and use "Happy Holidays".

Strikes me as something of an American convention, much like the utterly entertaining "differently-abled".

This. I say Merry Christmas.

Merry Christmas. Especially on Christmas Eve.

we got two votes for happy holidays can i hear from them ??

I go with happy holidays...I celebrate three holidays at this time of year, and see no reason to exclude one of them (mind you, most people celebrate atleast two in some form or another)

I also use it when I am at work. I have no way of knowing what religion my customers are, and it isn't my place to presume.

On Christmas, I say "Merry Christmas" to my Christian friends. On Chanukkah, I say "Happy Chanukkah" to my Jewish friends. On New Years, I say "Happy New Years" to everyone. Overall, I'll go with "Happy holidays" for the general season, and even on the specific day.

Now you have 3 votes for Happy Holidays.

I use Merry Christmas if I know for certain the person is Christian and Happy Holidays if there is any doubt. Actually I tend to say "Have a nice holiday" which sort of steps around the question.

Some of this might be due to the fact that I'm not Christian.

Now you have 3 votes for Happy Holidays.

I use Merry Christmas if I know for certain the person is Christian and Happy Holidays if there is any doubt. Actually I tend to say "Have a nice holiday" which sort of steps around the question.

Some of this might be due to the fact that I'm not Christian.

Meh, I'm not christian either, doesn't bother me to say merry christmas to people though.

I wouldn't expect a Muslim or Hindu to alter their terminology or phrasiology to preclude offence at Ramadan or Diwali, hence I see no reason to do the same and use "Happy Holidays".

Strikes me as something of an American convention, much like the utterly entertaining "differently-abled".
"differently abled" is pure PC bull.

Happy holidays recognizes that even Christians celebrate more than one holiday at this time of year.

"differently abled" is pure PC bull.

Happy holidays recognizes that even Christians celebrate more than one holiday at this time of year.

To be honest, I'll confess to complete ignorance of Judaism, hence explaining my ignorance of Channukah, however, I always thought of New Year as a non-denominational universal piss up, and nothing more.

As many LDSers as there are around here, as well as Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Taoists, etc etc etc...it's stupid to make assumptions. Stupid, arrogant and backwards. Even if someone 'looks white/Christian' it doesn't mean that the person you're addressing is Christian. So why wouldn't I make the simple choice, and well wish everyone, regardless of his or her faith? The hope is that everyone gets some time to relax over the holidays.

It's not that I'd actually be offended by someone wishing me Merry Christmas, as happened a number of times today. I'm used to white people assuming I'm 'x' because I have pale skin. Not a single 'non-white' person said Merry Christmas though...they all said Happy Holidays. I prefer that sort of non-assumption...I'm uncertain why more people can't follow suit.

I usually just wish them a Happy Holidays.

In this country 'Christmas' refers to the whole period, not just the day nor a particular set of beliefs, so I see no reason not to use it.

Happy Holiday would be more appropriate really. For example Christians celebrate just Christmas, not another holiday as well. I am tired so I am probably just talking rubbish. I just hate the term Happy Holidays. It sounds PC and I hate this soft language.

In this country 'Christmas' refers to the whole period, not just the day nor a particular set of beliefs, so I see no reason not to use it.

yeah, and when xmas is over, you say 'have a good new year' or 'happy new year', etc

To be honest, I'll confess to complete ignorance of Judaism, hence explaining my ignorance of Channukah, however, I always thought of New Year as a non-denominational universal piss up, and nothing more.

while New Years is non-denominational, and I could give you the "piss up" aspect, it is still a holiday, and observed by...well...everyone I've ever met. It's safe to assume that Christians will be celebrating New Years and Christmas, making "Happy holidays" acceptable, even to them

I say Happy Festivus.

Happy Holiday would be more appropriate really. For example Christians celebrate just Christmas, not another holiday as well. I am tired so I am probably just talking rubbish. I just hate the term Happy Holidays. It sounds PC and I hate this soft language.

You don't celebrate New Years?

In this country 'Christmas' refers to the whole period, not just the day nor a particular set of beliefs, so I see no reason not to use it.

What a load of crap.

This amazing argument that 'Merry Christmas' is non-secular is absolutely laughable. If one found such idiocy entertaining. The 'default religion' in the US and Canada is still Christianity. There are many, many 'cultural Christians'...people who are not particularly religious yet nonetheless have been exposed and raised within the Christian tradition in one way or another. Christmas is the ultimate default 'culturally Christian' holiday...one that doesn't necessarily mean more than lots of presents, but which regardless is still so inextricably intertwined with historical religious under and overtones that it is disingenuous at best, and downright false to claim the phrase 'Merry Christmas' does not refer to a particular set of beliefs.

That you simply cannot recognise that fact says more about your inability to effectively critique the system within which you live, than it says about the 'touchiness' of those who don't appreciate the Christian well-wishing.

In the UK, I don't think I've ever heard the term happy holidays said by anyone in my life, Christmas or 'xmas' is almost universally used to describe this time of year, I've yet to see anyone in the UK also find the term 'merry Christmas' offensive. I agree with TBC when he says it seems to be largely an American phenomenon.

Of course it's American.

I agree with TBC when he says it seems to be largely an American phenomenon.

Yet another thing the US seems to be further ahead in terms of than the UK.

That must sting.

Yet another thing the US seems to be further ahead in terms of than the UK.


Yeah, we're so envious of you in that respect, we're totally not laughing at the quaintness of it all.

I'd say Merry Xmas if you KNOW they're Christian or look Christmassy.

If they're Jewish, they will probably like this Chanukah greeting - Rudolph's first cousin, Shlomo:
http://www.hiregary.com/care2/shlomo.bmp

I usually just say Merry Christmas.

This. Or maybe "Happy Christmas".
I wouldn't expect a Muslim or Hindu to alter their terminology or phrasiology to preclude offence at Ramadan or Diwali, hence I see no reason to do the same and use "Happy Holidays".

Strikes me as something of an American convention, much like the utterly entertaining "differently-abled".
I expect it has something to do with the fact that America has a great variety of people from differing cultural backgrounds. Assuming they celebrate Christmas is as likely to be wrong as it is to be right.

Yeah, we're so envious of you in that respect, we're totally not laughing at the quaintness of it all.

Not from the US over here.

Typically, if I know a person is of a certain religion, or otherwise celebrates a certain holiday, I'll wish them a happy/merry that-holiday. Otherwise, I'll probably wish them "Happy Holidays," since most people celebrate more than one holiday at this time of year (often Christmas and New Years).

Yeah, we're so envious of you in that respect, we're totally not laughing at the quaintness of it all.

I might just have to drown my sorrows at our regressed state tomorrow. Care to join me?

After that we could question evolution.

Since 99% of the self-proclaimed Christians barely take the Bible as any more than a bit of fun reading, and the rest are in Westboro Baptist Church, I don't see a reason to cling to terminology. For 99% of the people it's just a day off the work and an excuse to get drunk, and you don't wish much good to the rest.

Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are all major religions followed by large populations in my city. While most people I know celebrate Christmas no matter what their personal faith, I still find it strange to bid a Merry Christmas to people to whom I have never big a Joyful Ramadan or a Happy Diwali. I use happy holidays because I feel most comfortable with it.

I don't say anything. I just smile. I've quit wishing people happy anything since I figured out I don't care. I do tell cashiers and the like "I hope everyone is nice to you today" because people are often shits to them. I feel it's more heartfelt than the "have a nice day" line.

I sent out cards this year, they simply said "Wishing you the best of the season" whatever the hell that means........I guess the best of fall/winter means like, less sleet and hail.

Strikes me as something of an American convention, much like the utterly entertaining "differently-abled".

Not to start a fight on Christmas Eve, but I object.

Having someone make fun of those that are differently-abled or use crude terms to describe them is so very "entertaining." NOT.

I mean, what harm is it to you to use names for people that those people find unoffensive? Seems like simple courtesy if nothing else.

But Happy Holidays to all, nonetheless.!

What a load of crap.

This amazing argument that 'Merry Christmas' is non-secular is absolutely laughable. If one found such idiocy entertaining. The 'default religion' in the US and Canada is still Christianity. There are many, many 'cultural Christians'...people who are not particularly religious yet nonetheless have been exposed and raised within the Christian tradition in one way or another. Christmas is the ultimate default 'culturally Christian' holiday...one that doesn't necessarily mean more than lots of presents, but which regardless is still so inextricably intertwined with historical religious under and overtones that it is disingenuous at best, and downright false to claim the phrase 'Merry Christmas' does not refer to a particular set of beliefs.

That you simply cannot recognise that fact says more about your inability to effectively critique the system within which you live, than it says about the 'touchiness' of those who don't appreciate the Christian well-wishing.

Why in this world that preaches acceptance and equality is there this idea that 'Merry Christmas' is some evil Christian ideal while 'Happy Holidays' is a pure and safe state approved greeting. Fuck that. 'Merry Christmas' to me and to a whole hell lot more people doesn't mean fuck all about Jesus any more. It means the same goddamn thing as 'Happy Holidays' or 'Seasons Greetings'. It means take this time to celebrate with your family and friends, to eat well, to give not only to each other but to those less fortunate. If people honestly get offended by a stranger wishing them well because of an ages old religious connection they may just have a problem with society as a whole, or at least every facet of it that has any connection to religion or a religion that is not their own. In that case they may be better of being miserable, blind to what Christmas or Chanakkuh or Kwanzaa or the Holidays or whatever the hell you celebrate means today.

Merry Christmas.

I'm pretty much on autopilot where that's concerned. I grew up with "Merry Christmas," I used it my whole mis-spent life, it's lost any meaning for me except as a wish for happiness at this season. If a godless heathen like me has no problem with it, why should anyone else?

And you should really have a "Who gives a damn" option in the poll for people like me who really don't give a damn.

I say "Happy Holidays!" almost purely to enrage right-wing talk radio pundits.

On that note... Happy Holidays!

I say Happy Holidays partly because I'm atheist, and therefore don't celebrate any holiday for it's intended purpose.

Also, I don't know what their religion is, and I don't want to risk offending anyone. And I don't know which holiday happens to go with all the religions.

Of course it's American.

The whole "find offense at any cost and rail on about it" thing? Yeah. Definitely American.

Not to start a fight on Christmas Eve, but I object.

Having someone make fun of those that are differently-abled or use crude terms to describe them is so very "entertaining." NOT.

I mean, what harm is it to you to use names for people that those people find unoffensive? Seems like simple courtesy if nothing else.

But Happy Holidays to all, nonetheless.!

Swing and a miss. "Utterly entertaining" was clearly being used to describe the butchery of language that is the phrase "differently abled". I'm sorry you missed that. Sorrier still that you immediately assumed that offense was intended.

I say merry Christmas. That's the holiday that gives reason for the time off. Celebrating isn't a religious thing anymore. Its a corporate thing that helps the economy; and its tradition. I assume most people would celebrate it, if not then i don't know about ure weird ass religious holiday that deems Christmas as evil because its not ure religion.

its mellow midwinter's eve. the winter solstice is ancient and if not quite eternal, certainly more so then the species 'humanity' of earth.

christianity by comparison is a johnny come lately. being only a couple of thousand years old. where as the human speices, both by archological record, and even christianity's own book, if more of the people who read it would ever read the whole thing and learn how to count, has been keeping track of its history at least 20,000, possiby, 25,000, years.

and while we don't KNOW how many of those tens of thousands of years the solstice has been celibrated, its pretty obviously been a good deal longer then merely the most recent couple of thousand.

I was wishing everyone else out walking a merry Xmas.

Just say "Buon Natale". You'll look cool, because everyone knows italians are cool.
B)

Btw, I really can't understand this habit of writing Xmas instead of Christmas. It's quite annoying.

I generally go with "Bah humbug"

Happy Holidays or Seasons Greetings just sounds artificial. I'd prefer Merry Christmas over anything else any day, to be honest. Even though I'm not Christian in the slightest.

You forgot the "bah-humbug" option.

I have never heard anyone say happy holidays, and I'm glad of it. It just sounds like another load of PC shite. I have never met a non-Christian who was bothered by "Merry Christmas" so I'm just going to stick with what people have always said.

I have never heard anyone say happy holidays, and I'm glad of it. It just sounds like another load of PC shite. I have never met a non-Christian who was bothered by "Merry Christmas" so I'm just going to stick with what people have always said.
Political correctness gone mad!!!!!!

Boys, I'm guessing that you have few or no friends who aren't Christian? It's not political correctness to consider the form of greeting.
You don't necessarily have to wish people a merry Christmas. Maybe it's better to just ask them how they're going and if they're doing anything over the holidays.
If it crops up that they're another religion maybe you'll find out something about their religious festivals.
Christmas is a great festival which other cultures envy, and aspects of the festival are much much older than Christianity - but it's not the only interesting festival.

Last year I had to say 'Happy Holidays' while on the air, this year the new PD didn't care so I say Merry Christmas.

Boys, I'm guessing that you have few or no friends who aren't Christian? It's not political correctness to consider the form of greeting.
You don't necessarily have to wish people a merry Christmas. Maybe it's better to just ask them how they're going and if they're doing anything over the holidays.
If it crops up that they're another religion maybe you'll find out something about their religious festivals.
Christmas is a great festival which other cultures envy, and aspects of the festival are much much older than Christianity - but it's not the only interesting festival.
I tend not to say if off my own back, I'll usually only say it if someone says it to me first, primarily because I'm confused by this sudden change from the usual "good bye" or "hello" and so just blurt it back at them.

Or mumble incoherently to myself.

What a load of crap.

Not really. Different cultures and different meanings.

Well I am visiting home for the holidays. On Xmas Eve around 3pm I am bored so i go explore the green belt my city has built (basically a large extended park that cuts the city in half with a walk ways).
I was wishing everyone else out walking a merry Xmas. Then going the other wayis an old woman and her grandmother. She is wearing clothing that suggests she is Hindu. I elect in order to minimize offense to use happy holidays when greeting her. her grand daughter replies back with happy holidays and we both go our sepreate ways.


This had me thinking. This is Xmas Eve is it needed to use the term happy holidays on a day that is part of Xmas. Ive used it for the time of year in writing but never verbally before and never for the day it was. VErbally the term Happy holidays seems akward to me as well.

So my question is is it better to use Happy holidays to minimize offense on the day of the holiday? Or should i use Merry Xmas on the day and eve of the holiday?

Even if you celebrate Christmas, I don't see what's wrong with "Happy Holidays." The vast majority of those who celebrate Christmas also recognize the Christian New Year less than a week later. Really, how many people resent "Happy Holidays" minimizing Christmas because they don't celebrate Chanuka, but then they're not going to celebrate New Years because they're waiting for Rosh Hoshana?

Or course, I have yet to hear anyone complain about being wished a Merry Christmas when they celebrate something else. I only hear people complain about being wished Happy Holidays instead. So then I wish them abject misery from the 21st of December until the Second of January with the exception of the 25th of December, and express my utter confusion over why they would wish such a thing for themselves, but that my belief in tolerance of others compels me to respect their wishes and beliefs that bring no harm to others.

so I'm just going to stick with what people have always said.

Which is ? Because it certainly isn't Merry Christmas :p

In the UK, I don't think I've ever heard the term happy holidays said by anyone in my life, Christmas or 'xmas' is almost universally used to describe this time of year, I've yet to see anyone in the UK also find the term 'merry Christmas' offensive. I agree with TBC when he says it seems to be largely an American phenomenon.

No. It isn't. No one finds the phrase Merry Christmas offensive. Happy Holidays became an advertising gimmick to attract business from those who celebrate something else.

The only people who take offense are right wingers who take offense at the phrase Happy Holidays.

In my quest to be as "politcally incorrect" as I can be, I still say Merry Christmas... I don't take offense to any of it...

Now you have 3 votes for Happy Holidays.

I use Merry Christmas if I know for certain the person is Christian and Happy Holidays if there is any doubt. Actually I tend to say "Have a nice holiday" which sort of steps around the question.

Some of this might be due to the fact that I'm not Christian.
^ ^
This.

In my quest to be as "politcally incorrect" as I can be, I still say Merry Christmas... I don't take offense to any of it...
Nonetheless, it isn't about whether you find it offensive, it's about if other people find things offensive.

I quite dislike this whole "let's be politically incorrect!" thing, inspired by things like the Daily Mail and Jeremy Clarkson. There is a fine line between when political correctness is appropriate and when it begins to take the piss, but a lot of people on this "anti-PC brigade" *shivers* by and large use it as an excuse just to be rude then act all offended when someone calls them out on the fact they're just being bigoted.

What a load of crap.

This amazing argument that 'Merry Christmas' is non-secular is absolutely laughable. If one found such idiocy entertaining. The 'default religion' in the US and Canada is still Christianity. There are many, many 'cultural Christians'...people who are not particularly religious yet nonetheless have been exposed and raised within the Christian tradition in one way or another. Christmas is the ultimate default 'culturally Christian' holiday...one that doesn't necessarily mean more than lots of presents, but which regardless is still so inextricably intertwined with historical religious under and overtones that it is disingenuous at best, and downright false to claim the phrase 'Merry Christmas' does not refer to a particular set of beliefs.

That you simply cannot recognise that fact says more about your inability to effectively critique the system within which you live, than it says about the 'touchiness' of those who don't appreciate the Christian well-wishing.

well, you see, i don't care whether its Christian or not, or whether whoever i'm wishing it to is christian or not. as far as i'm concerned, i'm celebrating, and i'm going to wish a happy whatever-it-is-i'm-celebrating to whoever i choose. if they're not celebrating the same thing as me, then so be it, no harm done. if they are, that's great. if i say merry christmas to someone, and they're not celebrating christmas, then that's not my problem, and i don't care. i'm celebrating it, and i'm going to wish them a good one whatever faith (or not) they are (or aren't).


besides, in the UK, only 10% of people go to church, iirc, and we are very much a largely secular country. yet the vast majority celebrate christmas. how can this be? it is because, for most people in this country, christmas has lost its religious connotations and has become a non-christian celebration. most people just put up with the religious aspects of it because its part of the package

Yet another thing the US seems to be further ahead in terms of than the UK.

That must sting.

less PC nonsense and more secularism... that's backwards alright ;)

less PC nonsense and more secularism... that's backwards alright ;)

Yes. It makes so much more sense to claim that 'Happy Holidays' is 'PC nonsense' and then prattle on about how non-secular 'Merry Christmas' is.

Did your brain spasm when you twisted it around like that?

I say Friday even though I have no belief in Norse mythology, much as I say Merry Christmas regardless of its origin.

Is it really worth caring about?

Merry Christmas everybody.

Neither. The correct term is "Merry Zodmas", not "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays".

Merry Zodmas, slaves of planet Houston!

In the midst of all your celebrations and whatnot, don't forget to continue kneeling before Zod during this Zodmas season!

Because if you get up off your knees, I will be forced to shoot you with my eye lasers, and then I will have a Merry Zodmas in your stead!

I wish you a merry Zodmas
I wish you a merry Zodmas
I wish you a merry Zodmas
And a happy new year

Good tidings I bring
IF you're on your knees
Good tidings for Zodmas
And a happy new year!

Just say "Buon Natale". You'll look cool, because everyone knows italians are cool.
B)

Btw, I really can't understand this habit of writing Xmas instead of Christmas. It's quite annoying.

Sorry, but that's got solild credentials. The Greeks (in whose language much of the Bible was written) spell Christ "Xristos" (where X, or xi, is pronounced like the CH in "loch"). It's a legitimate and very old abbreviation. The fact that storefronts latched on to it to save space is a recent phenomenon. Take it up with retailers.

I have never heard anyone say happy holidays, and I'm glad of it. It just sounds like another load of PC shite. I have never met a non-Christian who was bothered by "Merry Christmas" so I'm just going to stick with what people have always said.

People "have always said" a lot of things. You've never heard a non-Christian get bothered because you've never been in a non-Christian dominated country, I'll wager. Try wishing a Merry Christmas in, say, Damascus or Jakarta, and see the reaction. Being in the land of your personal majority insulates you from having to think like a minority. The minority where you are probably doesn't complain because they're going along to get along. You've no idea what they really think, and even if you asked them, you'd get a censored reply because they're the minority, and they'd like to remain unmolested by the less tolerant aspect of the majority.

I say Friday even though I have no belief in Norse mythology, much as I say Merry Christmas regardless of its origin.

Is it really worth caring about?

Merry Christmas everybody.

THIS, however, is a good point.

Yes. It makes so much more sense to claim that 'Happy Holidays' is 'PC nonsense' and then prattle on about how non-secular 'Merry Christmas' is.

Did your brain spasm when you twisted it around like that?
that's my point. Merry Christmas is a-religious here. it isn't being PC, it isn't being non-PC, that's just the way it is, and that's what most people say here because we're not terrified of offending someone's religion due to the fact that most of us are not making a religious statement in the first place

that said, i can't possibly see how people could get offended anyway. how up-tight do you have to be to be offended by someone essentially wishing you well FFS?

Merry Christmas.

If it offends other people then I'm sorry but perhaps they can use some of this tolerence I keep hearing about to hold off on giving me a hard time about it.

I say, "You too." Otherwie I try to leave the whole thing alone. You wish someone a happy day, then they blame you when their day is shitty and lame.

Sorry, but that's got solild credentials. The Greeks (in whose language much of the Bible was written) spell Christ "Xristos"

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but this language is English and we don't have that letter in our alphabet.

People "have always said" a lot of things. You've never heard a non-Christian get bothered because you've never been in a non-Christian dominated country, I'll wager. Try wishing a Merry Christmas in, say, Damascus or Jakarta, and see the reaction. Being in the land of your personal majority insulates you from having to think like a minority. The minority where you are probably doesn't complain because they're going along to get along. You've no idea what they really think, and even if you asked them, you'd get a censored reply because they're the minority, and they'd like to remain unmolested by the less tolerant aspect of the majority. They will not be offended, why should they be offended? And if they really are offended well I’m still not going to change.

People who say Happy Holidays and use the excuse "it’s for Christmas and New Year". What ever happened to "Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year"

And the end of the day it’s a nice thing to say, not often complete strangers greet each other in the street these days. Happy Holidays has no meaning to me, it just sounds commercial and empty.

Nonetheless, it isn't about whether you find it offensive, it's about if other people find things offensive.

I quite dislike this whole "let's be politically incorrect!" thing, inspired by things like the Daily Mail and Jeremy Clarkson. There is a fine line between when political correctness is appropriate and when it begins to take the piss, but a lot of people on this "anti-PC brigade" *shivers* by and large use it as an excuse just to be rude then act all offended when someone calls them out on the fact they're just being bigoted.

I tend to actually be polite about my "political incorrectness" However it is in my background to just not give a damn what others think of me. I will apologize if I offend someone, because it is polite, but if they dont like me as a person because I say Merry Christmas, that's their problem.

I tend to actually be polite about my "political incorrectness" However it is in my background to just not give a damn what others think of me. I will apologize if I offend someone, because it is polite, but if they dont like me as a person because I say Merry Christmas, that's their problem.

I am not offended when people use "Merry Christmas" and I use both it and "Happy Holidays"--depending on to whom I am speaking.

But it seems to me that the spirit of Christmas itself urges one to go out of one's way not to offend others, rather than take a "that's their problem" attitude.

Again, what most people decry as "political correctness" I see as simple courtesy.

Here's my take. Don't base it on what day or season it is. Base it on who you're talking to.

If they are obviously Christian: Say Merry Christmas. The few Christian-flavored traditions that don't acknowledge Christmas are not going to wear outward symbols of their faith either (i.e., Jehovah's Witnesses); everyone else probably will at one time or another.

If you can't tell what faith they are: Best approach is to just say hello. If you MUST acknowledge a holiday that a stranger might not celebrate then Happy Holidays is acceptable but there's no reason to say it if the other person might not celebrate it. It'd be like saying Happy Yom Kippur or Blessed Ramadan to a Christian.

If they're obviously non-Christian: Just say Hello unless they say Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays to you first.

And really, put the shoe on the other foot. On the slim chance you might be aware of it next time Eid Mubarak comes up, for instance, are you going to say "have a blessed Eid" to any hijabi you run into? I doubt it. It's not a bad idea, but most people coming from a Christian background won't think of it and some might be actively repulsed by the idea. So then, don't expect a non-Christian to get all mushy about your holidays either. It's just simple courtesy. If they want to become Christian one day, they will do it. If the best they've seen of Christianity is some pushy idiot expecting them to celebrate a holiday they don't believe in, however, they're less likely to do so than if they have been treated with respect by Christians all along.

My two cents, your mileage may vary.

But it seems to me that the spirit of Christmas itself urges one to go out of one's way not to offend others, rather than take a "that's their problem" attitude.

Nonono. You have to show respect and courtesy to "insert group here", otherwise you are a bad person(tm) that needs to be scorned, but they are under no obligation to do anything of the sort towards you. That you would even consider that in fact makes you a bad person(tm).

Well I am visiting home for the holidays. On Xmas Eve around 3pm I am bored so i go explore the green belt my city has built (basically a large extended park that cuts the city in half with a walk ways).
I was wishing everyone else out walking a merry Xmas. Then going the other wayis an old woman and her grandmother. She is wearing clothing that suggests she is Hindu. I elect in order to minimize offense to use happy holidays when greeting her. her grand daughter replies back with happy holidays and we both go our sepreate ways.

This had me thinking. This is Xmas Eve is it needed to use the term happy holidays on a day that is part of Xmas. Ive used it for the time of year in writing but never verbally before and never for the day it was. VErbally the term Happy holidays seems akward to me as well.

So my question is is it better to use Happy holidays to minimize offense on the day of the holiday? Or should i use Merry Xmas on the day and eve of the holiday?

If I were to initiate, I'd say 'happy holidays', since I don't know the specific beliefs of the person in question. I'm sure it's possible to take offense to that termoinology as well, given it's implication that everyone must be celebrating SOMETHING, and the implication that it would also be a 'holy' day... but I believe in minimising the damage. :)

If someone else initiates, I tend to respond with whichever holiday greeting they use.

...if they dont like me as a person because I say Merry Christmas, that's their problem.

So, if I tell you that that response is "fucking stupid"... if it offends you, that's your problem?

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but this language is English and we don't have that letter in our alphabet.
Nonetheless, English does take a lot from other languages, so that story still sticks, even if it isn't one which you like.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but this language is English and we don't have that letter in our alphabet.

We kind of do, actually... the sounds, and the symbols, roughly. We've just 'repurposed' them, because that's what we do.

THIS, however, is a good point.
It would be, if the old Norse religion was still the majority religion in your country.
that's my point. Merry Christmas is a-religious here.
While I don't doubt that the UK is less religious than the US and some of its lunatic fringe, I do contest your bald-faced assertion that Christmas is a-religious when 41 million people (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/focuson/religion/) stated that they were Christians in the 2001 census compared to only 8.6 million who said they had no religion.

that's my point. Merry Christmas is a-religious here. it isn't being PC, it isn't being non-PC, that's just the way it is, and that's what most people say here because we're not terrified of offending someone's religion due to the fact that most of us are not making a religious statement in the first place

that said, i can't possibly see how people could get offended anyway. how up-tight do you have to be to be offended by someone essentially wishing you well FFS?

"I hope you enjoy celebrating the birth of the person who said you'll burn in hell"... yeah, how could anyone get offended?

"I hope you enjoy celebrating the birth of the person who said you'll burn in hell"... yeah, how could anyone get offended?
One might counter with the ideas of peace and love and all that malarky that he also is said to have talked about.

One might counter with the ideas of peace and love and all that malarky that he also is said to have talked about.

If you're one of the chosen.

I'm an atheist - where's my peace and love? Am I going to burn in hell? That's kinda the whole point. Christ is fluffy bunnies if you're a christian, but a pretty evil thing to wish on someone, (if you believe it to be literal), if they are not of that faith.

If you're one of the chosen.

I'm an atheist - where's my peace and love? Am I going to burn in hell? That's kinda the whole point. Christ is fluffy bunnies if you're a christian, but a pretty evil thing to wish on someone, (if you believe it to be literal), if they are not of that faith.

Did Christ actually say that non-believers would burn in hell? :confused:

So my question is is it better to use Happy holidays to minimize offense on the day of the holiday? Or should i use Merry Xmas on the day and eve of the holiday?
Merry Christmas all the time. It's what it is and all that.

Did Christ actually say that non-believers would burn in hell? :confused:

If 'John' is to be believed, at the very least, yes.

Merry Christmas all the time. It's what it is and all that.

Then "Merry-syncretistic-and-now-commercialised-celebration-based-pretty-much-entirely-around-pagan-roots" would be more appropriate, surely?

Bit of a mouthful, though.

Then "Merry-syncretistic-and-now-commercialised-celebration-based-pretty-much-entirely-around-pagan-roots" would be more appropriate, surely?

Bit of a mouthful, though.
Bleuch. I'm an atheist and I can't tolerate this kind of bullshit. It's Christmas.

"Oh look at me I'm pointing out that Christmas is in fact just made of up other festivals to replace them, woo aren't I clever" - Incredible smugness, mmm.

"I hope you enjoy celebrating the birth of the person who said you'll burn in hell"... yeah, how could anyone get offended?

The guy supposedly was executed for his crimes, which we can celebrate at Easter. Tit for tat ;)

If 'John' is to be believed, at the very least, yes.

What did he say?

I'm not arguing the point, it's just that I've always had the impression that the new testament is much less fire and brimstone than the old. I don't want to read the whole of John to find the quote and you seem to know your scripture.

If you're one of the chosen.

I'm an atheist - where's my peace and love? Am I going to burn in hell? That's kinda the whole point. Christ is fluffy bunnies if you're a christian, but a pretty evil thing to wish on someone, (if you believe it to be literal), if they are not of that faith.
Yeah, that's true.

I'm an atheist, so I'm going to take my chances on it all being bollocks, really.

Yeah, that's true.

I'm an atheist, so I'm going to take my chances on it all being bollocks, really.

This is true, it doesn't sound like much of a threat to someone who doesn't buy into the myth.

On the other hand, walking down the street, smiling, and telling everyone they deserve to be punished along side murderers, rapists and tyrants, isn't as friendly and peaceful a gesture as some think it.

This is true, it doesn't sound like much of a threat to someone who doesn't buy into the myth.

On the other hand, walking down the street, smiling, and telling everyone they deserve to be punished along side murderers, rapists and tyrants, isn't as friendly and peaceful a gesture as some think it.

Yeeeeah but barring the odd nutcake, that isn't the actual though in people's heads as they, through force of habit, wish others Merry Christmas.

GNI.. why do you have to turn every thread about Holidays into a "I don't celebrate holidays because I'm cool/a killjoy" (pick one) thread?

What did he say?

I'm not arguing the point, it's just that I've always had the impression that the new testament is much less fire and brimstone than the old. I don't want to read the whole of John to find the quote and you seem to know your scripture.

According to John, Jesus said: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God...And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

And John the Baptist said: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

According to John, Jesus calls the non-Christian 'condemned' and 'resurrected unto damnation'. According to John, John the Baptist said that non-believers were going to suffer God's wrath.

It's pretty central to John, if you're not a believer, you're going to burn in hell.

GNI.. why do you have to turn every thread about Holidays into a "I don't celebrate holidays because I'm cool/a killjoy" (pick one) thread?

Eeehm.. this topic is about reasons to prefer "happy holidays" over "merry christmas" and vice versa. GnI's posts are a tad bit predictable (like my own) - but definitely on-topic.

GNI.. why do you have to turn every thread about Holidays into a "I don't celebrate holidays because I'm cool/a killjoy" (pick one) thread?

I don't think I've ever claimed to be cool. So, I must be killjoy.

Guess you answered your own question.

And, actually... I'm not sure I said I don't celebrate holidays.

Eeehm.. this topic is about reasons to prefer "happy holidays" over "merry christmas" and vice versa. GnI's posts are a tad bit predictable (like my own) - but definitely on-topic.

As long as the same questions come up, I'll probably answer with much the same responses. I'm not sure why I get cast as a bad guy for answering questions.

Meh.

I don't think I've ever claimed to be cool. So, I must be killjoy.

Guess you answered your own question.

And, actually... I'm not sure I said I don't celebrate holidays.

No you never said straight out that you don't, but you always seem to point out the whole artificial construct and etc. stuff. Yeah, I'm very technical today. Anyhow, it makes it seem like you don't so I had to ask.

Yeeeeah but barring the odd nutcake, that isn't the actual though in people's heads as they, through force of habit, wish others Merry Christmas.

Isn't that the problem, though?

Offering a cute little pleasantry, that comes with it's own side-salad of thousands of years of bad associations, and is itself tainted with the strongest curse inherent in the Judeo-christian lexicon... but doing so as an idle gesture?

You might as well walk down the street, smiling and saying 'fuck you too, I hope you die'.

Following this by pouting about why it makes the heathens/uppity foreigners/brown people sad seems criminally naive at best, and salt-in-the-wound maliciously contrived at worst.

Isn't that the problem, though?
No.
Offering a cute little pleasantry, that comes with it's own side-salad of thousands of years of bad associations, and is itself tainted with the strongest curse inherent in the Judeo-christian lexicon... but doing so as an idle gesture?

You might as well walk down the street, smiling and saying 'fuck you too, I hope you die'.

Following this by pouting about why it makes the heathens/uppity foreigners/brown people sad seems criminally naive at best, and salt-in-the-wound maliciously contrived at worst.
Remember kids - PHATIC TALK COSTS LIVES!

As long as the same questions come up, I'll probably answer with much the same responses. I'm not sure why I get cast as a bad guy for answering questions.

You are incorrectly assuming that people want answers or seek understanding. Most people simply do not wish to know the background of their own dearly held beliefs, customs or whatever and get especially annoyed when people point out they are not as noble and pretty as they think. And this is not limited to religion - ask the animallovers out there how people respond when they are told where their eggs and beef come from ;)

No you never said straight out that you don't, but you always seem to point out the whole artificial construct and etc. stuff. Yeah, I'm very technical today. Anyhow, it makes it seem like you don't so I had to ask.

In other threads, before, I've said that I 'celebrate' all the Christian 'holidays', because my wife and eldest daughter are Baptists. I similarly celebrate 'Independence Day', despite being a limey, for a similar reason - my immediate family all being born in Georgia. I also celebrate, as the whim takes me, celebrations from other cultures. But, in my case, it's mainly about the food, and being with people I care about.

Knowing they are artifice doesn't mean I can't hang with my kids. :)

You are incorrectly assuming that people want answers or seek understanding. Most people simply do not wish to know the background of their own dearly held beliefs, customs or whatever and get especially annoyed when people point out they are not as noble and pretty as they think. And this is not limited to religion - ask the animallovers out there how people respond when they are told where their eggs and beef come from ;)

Indeed, try explaining the curious anatomy of a chicken to someone while they tuck into their scrambled eggs...

People ask questions, and - if I can answer - I often do. I understand they might well be hoping for some reassuring rhetoric, but blaming me for responding seems... well, I don't know what. Crazy?

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but this language is English and we don't have that letter in our alphabet.

Please tell me you're kidding.

And if you're not, please tell all the churches using the "chi-rho" symbol (the X and P with the vertical length of the P passing through the center of the X) to re-do it in English, not to mention all those in the genealogy, archaeology, sociology and other disciplines to stop using Xian as a legitimate abbreviation for Christian.

Also, next time? Please refrain from addressing me in such a douchebaggy tone when I've done nothing to deserve it.

Indeed, try explaining the curious anatomy of a chicken to someone while they tuck into their scrambled eggs...
Why would that be a problem? I have no problems with switching the TV to Animal Planet and learning about the curious lifestyle of some animal, while gutting one over the sink.

Is there some reason you can't love and admire animals as amazing creatures, but also pay respect to their culinary properties at the same time?


I'm not talking about some advanced and endangered species like dolphins, of course, but about the commonplace livestock and game that supply our tables.

I mean, what harm is it to you to use names for people that those people find unoffensive? Seems like simple courtesy if nothing else.


There's using polite terms, and there's inanely going so far out of your way to sound polite that you actually come off as highly patronising (which is quite offensive), by using such whimsical terms like 'differently-abled'. You don't have to treat disabled people as if they're a bunch of ultra-sensitive and ultra-insecure group of people that find the words 'disabled' or 'handicapped' offensive - I don't think I've ever in my life heard disabled people complain about the word disabled.

The 'default religion' in the US and Canada is still Christianity. ....

That you simply cannot recognise that fact says more about your inability to effectively critique the system within which you live, than it says about the 'touchiness' of those who don't appreciate the Christian well-wishing.

Sorry, where? Try again, please, and preferably with less vitriol this time. At no point was I talking about the US or Canada.

Where I live such a greeting conveys as much religious meaning as the speaker or listener cares to give it. it is not a requirement by any means, and for most would not convey any religious meaning. Now, cultural meaning it certainly does convey, and whether the person connects cultural associations with religious ones is entirely up to them.

If you reread my original statement you'll see I said 'not just the day nor a particular set of beliefs' (emphasis added). This was not to imply an exclusive non-religious aspect of it, but that the phrase refers more so to the general period than to a particular set of beliefs.

Now, I could go on some diatribe about reading comprehension and add pointless attacks on intellect, but, fortunately, I'm nicer than that. *sigh*

[...] by using such whimsical terms like 'differently-abled'. You don't have to treat disabled people as if they're a bunch of ultra-sensitive and ultra-insecure group of people that find the words 'disabled' or 'handicapped' offensive - I don't think I've ever in my life heard disabled people complain about the word disabled.
"Disabled" is an euphemism already, actually. The word used to be "crippled".


As for "differently-abled", I think it does more harm than good. They want to change our perception by changing our language, right? Well, then, if someone is abled differently but (as implied) equally, I shouldn't bother helping him up the stairs. I shouldn't bother making and bringing for coffee for him, he's differently but equally abled. We shouldn't give him subsidized healthcare, he's just as able as us to pay for it. And the one faulty for the accident shouldn't pay him or his family money, he's just as able to provide for them on his own.

There's using polite terms, and there's inanely going so far out of your way to sound polite that you actually come off as highly patronising (which is quite offensive), by using such whimsical terms like 'differently-abled'. You don't have to treat disabled people as if they're a bunch of ultra-sensitive and ultra-insecure group of people that find the words 'disabled' or 'handicapped' offensive - I don't think I've ever in my life heard disabled people complain about the word disabled.

"Disabled" is an euphemism already, actually. The word used to be "crippled".

As for "differently-abled", I think it does more harm than good. They want to change our perception by changing our language, right? Well, then, if someone is abled differently but (as implied) equally, I shouldn't bother helping him up the stairs. I shouldn't bother making and bringing for coffee for him, he's differently but equally abled. We shouldn't give him subsidized healthcare, he's just as able as us to pay for it. And the one faulty for the accident shouldn't pay him or his family money, he's just as able to provide for them on his own.

As someone who is currently disabled, it warms the cockles of my heart to see such concern for those that are differently-abled. I personally don't mind the term disabled, but I know those who prefer differently-abled. I don't know anyone to whom the phrase applies that is offended by differently-abled.

"Differently-abled" simply emphasizes the fact that many people with disabilities are quite capable of accomplishing a particular task or performing a particular function, only in a different manner or taking more time or effort than people without the disability in question. It can also be taken to mean that a person who is incapable of one act may nevertheless be capable of many or even most others. (stolen from linky (http://www.bartleby.com/64/C006/025.html))

As for the argument that differently-abled is patronising and "whimsical," I reject the first and don't even understand the second objection. It is only patronising if you assume the "correct" word is disabled or handicapped or "crippled."

I'm not even going to address Vault 10's inane argument that someone who is differently-abled must be treated exactly the same as someone who is "normal," but we should feel pity for the disabled. *naseau* (I also fail to see how labels are relevant to whether one who is liable for a tort should have to pay for the damage they cause, whether one should be helpful to anyone else, and/or why we shouldn't ensure that everyone has access to healthcare.)

Call me handicapped or crippled and you may find yourself in a condition in which those terms apply to you. :eek::p:wink:

Nah I don't celebrate New Years. The year will be just as bad as the previous ones. :-P

Call me handicapped or crippled and you may find yourself in a condition in which those terms apply to you.

Why? (I get that you're being facetious about actually threatening harm)

I, being a norse pagan, say "Good Yule". This not only because of the norseness of it all, but because i dont care what religion you are, you respect the term of yule. It jsut works double for me . haha.

I chose happy holidays because its the same use as my good yule.

i dont care what religion you are, you respect the term of yule.

Fail

Fail

Hmm. That is a nice alternative to Merry Christmas for next year.

Merry Christmas !
Thank you Sir ! FAIL to you as well !

Aaah, yes. I can see their happy faces now :)

Hmm. That is a nice alternative to Merry Christmas for next year.

Merry Christmas !
Thank you Sir ! FAIL to you as well !

Aaah, yes. I can see their happy faces now :)

lol

Sorry, where? Try again, please, and preferably with less vitriol this time. At no point was I talking about the US or Canada.

Where I live such a greeting conveys as much religious meaning as the speaker or listener cares to give it. it is not a requirement by any means, and for most would not convey any religious meaning. Now, cultural meaning it certainly does convey, and whether the person connects cultural associations with religious ones is entirely up to them.

If you reread my original statement you'll see I said 'not just the day nor a particular set of beliefs' (emphasis added). This was not to imply an exclusive non-religious aspect of it, but that the phrase refers more so to the general period than to a particular set of beliefs.

Now, I could go on some diatribe about reading comprehension and add pointless attacks on intellect, but, fortunately, I'm nicer than that. *sigh*

Right (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/focuson/religion/). 41 million Christians in the UK compared to what...8.6 who claim no religion and only 1.6 million Muslims?

Tell me again, without cracking a face, that your special home is not by default, Christian.

I could go on a diatribe about the willfully ignorant, but I think your statements speak for themselves.

Well...The 'X' in Xmas is actually a greek addition for the word "Christ" to save room.....

So....It really doesnt matter, lol....i dont see why it pisses people off so much anyway...say what you damn well please and get on with it...

Right (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/focuson/religion/). 41 million Christians in the UK compared to what...8.6 who claim no religion and only 1.6 million Muslims?

Tell me again, without cracking a face, that your special home is not by default, Christian.

I could go on a diatribe about the willfully ignorant, but I think your statements speak for themselves.

Just because people say they are Christian does not mean they practice the faith or have much belief at all:

One single general trend can be brought out of all the statistics of religious belief in the UK: Our population is mostly irreligious, innocent and ignorant of religion, and despite some defaulting to calling themselves "Christian" (71%), the country is not Christian despite a vague 50% lingering belief in a God of some sort. Just over 6% of the population go to church on a Sunday13 (for every 6 who do, 94 do not).

“Many people are brought up, as part of their family, to say that they are Christian despite only having a precursory knowledge of Christ and only a vague belief in God. Frequently only a single parent figure has any interest in the Church, but insists that the household each calls themselves a Christian, and sometimes this continues for generations.

Link (http://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/religion.html)

Hence, my earlier point about Friday stands, people say it with hardly any allusion to its origin.

Happy solstice (before the solstice) Happy New Years (after the solstice) and Merry Christmas to my family.

Just because people say they are Christian does not mean they practice the faith or have much belief at all: Hence 'default' religion. People in Canada are not particularly religious either...those that name themselves "Christian" more often are 'culturally Christian'. They celebrate the main holidays, usually without any visit to the church, and have a vague belief in God and Jesus and what have you.

Nonetheless, you cannot escape Christianity. References to this religion are interwoven into our shared literally tradition, into our shared political and legal systems.

You seem to be under the extremely mistaken impression that unless you are a regular church-goer, then any claims to 'Christianity' actually means you're mostly agnostic with very little understanding of the cultural underpinnings of the religion itself. I contest such a foolish claim when Christianity is so inescapable in the US, Canada and yes....the UK.



Link (http://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/religion.html)

Hence, my earlier point about Friday stands, people say it with hardly any allusion to its origin.And as I said then, it's a foolish point. Christianity is not so far removed as is the Old Norse religion. Cultural influences of various sects of Christianity in your country and mine are still so prevalent and ubiquitous, that to claim 'Friday' is anything akin to 'Merry Christmas' would be laughable if I didn't believe you're actually buying what you're trying to sell.

And as I said then, it's a foolish point. Christianity is not so far removed as is the Old Norse religion. Cultural influences of various sects of Christianity in your country and mine are still so prevalent and ubiquitous, that to claim 'Friday' is anything akin to 'Merry Christmas' would be laughable if I didn't believe you're actually buying what you're trying to sell.

Give it time, that's the only difference, I could point to Hallowe'en as well.

I contest such a foolish claim when Christianity is so inescapable in the US, Canada and yes....the UK.


Im not disagreeing with you....what Im asking is....What do you want to do about it? like, whats your plan to escape this supposed problem?

Personally, Id say its the other way around...That Christianity cant escape the Cultural influences of the increasingly secular, consumerist, American, Candian...and British cultures...

But, thats just me....I mean, how is/would anyone change that?

Why would that be a problem?

Read a biology book. Maybe not while you are eating eggs.

"Disabled" is an euphemism already, actually. The word used to be "crippled".


As for "differently-abled", I think it does more harm than good. They want to change our perception by changing our language, right? Well, then, if someone is abled differently but (as implied) equally, I shouldn't bother helping him up the stairs. I shouldn't bother making and bringing for coffee for him, he's differently but equally abled. We shouldn't give him subsidized healthcare, he's just as able as us to pay for it. And the one faulty for the accident shouldn't pay him or his family money, he's just as able to provide for them on his own.

'They'?

Anyone can be 'disabled'. And the problem with the term is that it's not only unhelpful (because it doesn't tell you what the 'ability' is that has been 'dissed') but often entirely misleading. A great example would be someone I knew that played basketball (rather extraordinarily well) from a wheelchair. Could he run around to play? No - but he could compete on better than equal terms with most on taking shots, and could actually play competetively with 'normal' players of reasonable skill.

Or he could beat the hell out of me, because I suck at basketball.

'Disabled' is a poor descriptor. The person I'm talking about could play the game... just differently in some details. And if the average person tried to compete against him in a wheelchair game, they'd have got wiped. Why? Because he isn't DIS-abled, he is 'differently'-able.

The rest of your argument is somewhere between inane and insane. Equal protection under the law should be denied just because you can still move if you have wheels?

You shouldn't facilitate the differently-able... because if you do, that invalidates their equality?

I don't think I've ever in my life heard disabled people complain about the word disabled.

Ah well, an anecdote. That clinches it.

On the other hand... I've met some people that were quite incensed by the phrasing of 'disability'. Not just because they felt it inaccurate and misleading, but because they felt it did them more harm than good. For example: changing how a job application was considered.

At this point, Christmas is almost no longer a religious holiday, it's ingrained into our culture, so I go with "Merry Christmas!"

At this point, Christmas is almost no longer a religious holiday, it's ingrained into our culture, so I go with "Merry Christmas!"

It's not "ingrained in" my culture.

And, while the Christian population may have chosen to allow themselves to serve two masters on this festive occassion, I'm not particularly fond of either of them and would rather they'd cut their manic street-preaching down a few notches.

...I'm not particularly fond of either of them and would rather they'd cut their manic street-preaching down a few notches.
Wishing someone a Merry Christmas is "manic street-preaching" now?

Right (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/focuson/religion/). 41 million Christians in the UK compared to what...8.6 who claim no religion and only 1.6 million Muslims?

Tell me again, without cracking a face, that your special home is not by default, Christian.

I could go on a diatribe about the willfully ignorant, but I think your statements speak for themselves.

You really haven't done your research in the slightest. It's been proven that a large portion of the people in the UK who call themselves Christian, barely even believe God if at all, even Dawkins describes himself as a cultural christian.

'They'?
The Great Committee Of Removing The Trace Of Any Meaning From The Language or whoever these guys are who come up with new euphemisms for official use.


Anyone can be 'disabled'. And the problem with the term is that it's not only unhelpful (because it doesn't tell you what the 'ability' is that has been 'dissed') but often entirely misleading. A great example would be someone I knew that played basketball (rather extraordinarily well) from a wheelchair. Could he run around to play? No - but he could compete on better than equal terms with most on taking shots, and could actually play competetively with 'normal' players of reasonable skill.
That's why I consider "handicapped" the best term to use. It directly addresses the idea of what's different about the person, while not making any statement about their ability - negative or positive.

I think it's most likely that the guy you've mentioned plays basketball well despite his handicap, not because of it.


You shouldn't facilitate the differently-able... because if you do, that invalidates their equality?
Because if I didn't know any of the euphemisms, and if I was asked to contribute money to:
a) Fund for Helping the Disabled,
b) Fund for Helping the Differently-Abled
- my money would go to the fund A. Without a moment of doubt. Actually, I would think that the "differently-abled" refers to lawyers and managers, i.e. people who are well able to provide for themselves, but not through producing something.


Why? Because he isn't DIS-abled, he is 'differently'-able.
If he's become "differently able" after losing the ability to walk, there has to be some ability he has gained. Not just from training and dedication to compensate for his loss (because he could do it without the loss too), but something he has gained in exchange for his walking ability.


When it's the people who have lost their legs that help us lift a piano up the stairs, or people who have lost their arms that work as watch repairmen and high-grade welders, or people who have lost their eyes that serve as elite snipers and pilots - then, yes, I'll say, without any reservation, that they are differently abled.

But so far, our prosthetics have a very long way to go until they can properly replace, much less surpass the stock parts, and we should work on it, not pretend we're already there.

Ah well, an anecdote. That clinches it.

On the other hand... I've met some people that were quite incensed by the phrasing of 'disability'.

Really, because I honestly thought that people like this only existed as strawmen created by right wingers, how unfortunate.


changing how a job application was considered.

And you wouldn't look like a complete plonker if you put "differently-abled" in your application form? Please.

You seem to be under the extremely mistaken impression that unless you are a regular church-goer, then any claims to 'Christianity' actually means you're mostly agnostic with very little understanding of the cultural underpinnings of the religion itself. I contest such a foolish claim when Christianity is so inescapable in the US, Canada and yes....the UK.

and i'm afraid you're under the mistaken impression that you know how it is in this country. a good number of british posters have said on this thread that they say 'Merry Christmas' because it means nothing more to them than 'Have a nice day' or something similar. for us, the idea that someone could be offended by the equivalent of 'have a nice day' is ridiculous. we, living in the UK, know how it is here. it may not make sense, it may not be logical, but somehow, in our modern tongue, we have 99% seperated the phrase 'Merry Christmas' from religion or christianity. to tell us that isn't the case, when we're living here, and frankly we know how it is, is arrogant and a waste of everybody's time (which is the reason i didn't bother checking this thread for a couple of days, plus the whole xmas day thing yesterday)

now, of course, i am making generalisations. for some, it will actually mean something. my grandma for example: to her it still means 'happy birth of christ', but for most people, whether they call themselves christian or not, really mean 'have a good time' - quite similar to 'happy holidays'. why don't we want to say 'happy holidays'? because we're pretty much already saying it

I can only think that you can come up with such a statement if you have absolutely no common sense whatsoever, it's almost an autistic way of thinking.
Now, now.

There's no need to get nasty.



and i'm afraid you're under the mistaken impression that you know how it is in this country. a good number of british posters have said on this thread that they say 'Merry Christmas' because it means nothing more to them than 'Have a nice day' or something similar. for us, the idea that someone could be offended by the equivalent of 'have a nice day' is ridiculous. we, living in the UK, know how it is here. it may not make sense, it may not be logical, but somehow, in our modern tongue, we have 99% seperated the phrase 'Merry Christmas' from religion or christianity. to tell us that isn't the case, when we're living here, and frankly we know how it is, is arrogant and a waste of everybody's time (which is the reason i didn't bother checking this thread for a couple of days, plus the whole xmas day thing yesterday)

now, of course, i am making generalisations. for some, it will actually mean something. my grandma for example: to her it still means 'happy birth of christ', but for most people, whether they call themselves christian or not, really mean 'have a good time' - quite similar to 'happy holidays'. why don't we want to say 'happy holidays'? because we're pretty much already saying it
QFT.

I like this quote from the LA times: "In a valiant effort to find a kinder term than handicapped, the Democratic National Committee has coined differently abled. The committee itself shows signs of being differently abled in the use of English."

Now, now.

There's no need to get nasty.

I know, I know. I would have never have said something like that based on one comment like that, it's more based on the many many comments I've seen by GnI, which have started to get to me.

and i'm afraid you're under the mistaken impression that you know how it is in this country. a good number of british posters have said on this thread that they say 'Merry Christmas' because it means nothing more to them than 'Have a nice day' or something similar. for us, the idea that someone could be offended by the equivalent of 'have a nice day' is ridiculous. we, living in the UK, know how it is here. it may not make sense, it may not be logical, but somehow, in our modern tongue, we have 99% seperated the phrase 'Merry Christmas' from religion or christianity. to tell us that isn't the case, when we're living here, and frankly we know how it is, is arrogant and a waste of everybody's time (which is the reason i didn't bother checking this thread for a couple of days, plus the whole xmas day thing yesterday)

now, of course, i am making generalisations. for some, it will actually mean something. my grandma for example: to her it still means 'happy birth of christ', but for most people, whether they call themselves christian or not, really mean 'have a good time' - quite similar to 'happy holidays'. why don't we want to say 'happy holidays'? because we're pretty much already saying it
Yes yes, because you personally have a particular belief about the absolute secularity of the phrase, and because you live in the area in question, I should simply accept that you are correct.

Just like I should buy the exact same tripe being spewed by the yanks...because they know their country better...Christmas is not religious, nope.

THIS is the sort of thing I'm talking about. The way you so completely delude yourself.

I don't care if you personally are Christian. You are celebrating a Christian holiday. The manner in which you do so is entirely unimportant to me. I don't care if it's all about a fat dude in a red suit, the fact of the matter is, it remains a Christian holiday, and when you ignorantly, and belligerently and FALSELY claim that wishing 'Merry Christmas' to everyone is nothing more than saying 'happy holidays' (based on the claim that suddenly Christmas is secular because that's how you feel about it)...you only display your ridiculous insistence to hold onto something that makes no sense. If you yourself are not Christian, why on earth would you care to continue using the phrase? When you have been told over and over by other people that it is exclusionary, unwelcome and often offensive? You're asking me to accept your interpretation as truth while completely discounting the more sensible interpretation of all the people who have said that a religious-based greeting is inappropriate. Either you enjoy mouthing idiocies for the sake of doing so, or you are deliberately supporting a religious culture you claim is unimportant to you. Neither of which are very flattering.

Christian religious schooling is still prevelant in the UK, with 30% of state funded schools being run by a Christian denomination. The UK is more secular than it has been in the past...a trend I hope continues to grow both in my country as well. But you are flat out deluding yourself if you actually in any way believe that Christianity has lost such hold on the social fabric of your nation that it is no longer relevant or powerful. No matter how much you personally may feel it should be (a sentiment I echo).

I say "Happy Holidays," but not to be politically correct. I do it just because there are so many winter holidays.

Did anyone else notice how OP said an "old woman and her grandmother"? XD

Oh for ... :rolleyes: Just go with Merry Winter Solstice and Happy Gross National Product Day. It has just as much meaning as any of the others and has the added benefit of offending just about everyone.

You are celebrating a Christian holiday.
What was, exclusively, a Christian holiday. But what now isn't.

See also: Halloween. Pancake Day. Easter. Fireworks Night.

The manner in which you do so is entirely unimportant to me. I don't care if it's all about a fat dude in a red suit, the fact of the matter is, it remains a Christian holiday
No, fact of the matter is that it has become much, much more than that.

See also: Santa. Rudolph. Presents. Christmas Tree. Stockings.

If you yourself are not Christian, why on earth would you care to continue using the phrase? When you have been told over and over by other people that it is exclusionary, unwelcome and often offensive?
Unless someone is striving for passive aggression, no one would greet a person with "Merry Christmas" if that person had already explained it makes them uncomfortable or offends them. But most people are not offended, and even those that are offended are rarely so outraged that they will ostracize the greeter. Considering all near-equivalent phrases (e.g., "Happy Holidays,") seem just as likely to offend a random person as "Merry Christmas," there's no real reason to prefer one over the other. If it does, the greeting can quickly be followed up with, "Oh, sorry about that." That phrase bothers very few people.

Wishing someone a Merry Christmas is "manic street-preaching" now?

Why not?

Religious mantras are a simple form of preaching, but they're still preaching.

I know, I know. I would have never have said something like that based on one comment like that, it's more based on the many many comments I've seen by GnI, which have started to get to me.

I am to blame for your words, now?

How exactly are my comments 'getting to you'?

And you wouldn't look like a complete plonker if you put "differently-abled" in your application form? Please.

If you feel that you're going to be instantly dismissed from consideration because of the term 'disability'?

I am to blame for your words, now?

How exactly are my comments 'getting to you'?

All work and no play make Hydesland a dull boy.

Religious mantras are a simple form of preaching, but they're still preaching.
Quite... if 'Merry Christmas' was a religious mantra.

I feel sorry for all you folks who live in some horrible land where no 'Merry Christmas' is without an hour-long sermon on the glory of Christ, but I live in a place where, happily, an atheist like myself can say 'Merry Christmas' to his atheist or agnostic friends, wishing them all the festive cheer of the period, while never meaning in any fashion except the dusty entomological that they should worship Jehovah.

We recognise the origin of the phrase, and the fact that many people still view Christmas as a holy day, but we do are not offended by it nor perceive it to be preaching. Just as we do not think saying 'goodbye' to one another is preaching, nor using the word 'holiday', nor using the phrase 'bless you' after sneezing.

I do not praise Thor every time I say 'Thursday', nor Odin when I say 'Wednesday'. Nor do I praise Njörðr when I eat a Yule log. I am not trying to summon devils when I dress up on Halloween, nor do I wish to burn the Pope when I "ooh" and "aah" at fireworks on November 5th. I am not deliberating on the trials and tribulations of Jesus when cooking pancakes on Shrove Tuesday, nor am I proselytising to my friends when we gorge on chocolate around Easter.

If you do not wish to celebrate Christmas, then fair play to you. But don't come on here arguing that I am chanting a mantra or manically preaching at people when I wish them a good time with family and friends. As folks on NS:G all very keen to remind, Christmas is merely the new name to a long, long succession of Winter festivals. Most of the words we use are old and come attached with differing meanings; but most of us can differentiate between a word's entomology and its current usage.

I am not ignorant of the origin of the word 'Christmas', nor that Christians still use the word to mean the day of the birth of Christ, but one look at the TV in any Western country will show you that it means far, far more than that today.

So delusional.

"Look! The largest and most prevalent religion in my country is Christianity! But Christmas is secular, yes it is!"

The continuous comparisons to the Old Norse religion are even more amusing.

How about, in a thousand years when all vestiges of Christianity have faded away to be forgotten by all but the most feverant of musty historians, you try that little argument, m'kay?

So delusional.

"Look! The largest and most prevalent religion in my country is Christianity! But Christmas is secular, yes it is!"

Why does having lots of Christians make Christmas a Christian holiday?

"Look! The largest and most prevalent religion in my country is Christianity! But Christmas is secular, yes it is!"
As long as you add, "to those people who aren't religious, yet celebrate Christmas", then it's an accurate statement.

If you think I'm arguing that in no way whatsoever, to anybody, is Christmas religious, then it's you, ma'am, who are delusional. That's obviously not my argument.

Observe:

Millions upon millions of people, claiming no religious belief, enjoy a Winter festival that has been co-opted by Christianity for some time now. It is commonly called Christmas in the West. For some, it is a special religious holiday to celebrate the birth of their saviour. For others, in Britain probably for most, it is a time of year when family and friends get together, exchanging presents, consuming food and drink, etc., without celebrating any religious event whatsoever.

Your argument seems to rest upon a weird assumption that those who secularly celebrate Christmas are deceiving themselves; actually worshipping Christ by not worshipping him in any way whatsoever. Evangelising to others by evangelising in no way whatsoever.

What I did on Christmas:

Got up at 12:00. Saw parents and brother. Had booze. Opened presents. Had food and more booze. Sat in front of fire reading book. Had booze. Ate more food. Went out. Had booze. Saw friends. Had booze.

What about the above is worshipping Christ? I can only see your argument working if you assume that an event, once associated with a certain dogma, can never escape said dogma, and anyone celebrating the event, no matter the manner in which they do this nor their beliefs about the event and what it represents, is thus supporting said dogma.

Thus, we are worshipping Thor by acknowledging 'Thursday'.

The continuous comparisons to the Old Norse religion are even more amusing.

How about, in a thousand years when all vestiges of Christianity have faded away to be forgotten by all but the most feverant of musty historians, you try that little argument, m'kay?
How's about some refutation, oh amused one?

Why aren't the comparisons valid? Presumeably you think Christianity is too potent for any association with it to be invalid. Thus, I assume, you must think that the millions of people all over the world 'oohing' and 'ahhing' at fireworks on November 5th are pushing the agenda of the destruction of the Catholic Church? And, further, you must think that those cooking pancakes on Shrove Tuesday are deliberating on the trials and tribulations of Jesus in the desert?

Further, anyone saying 'goodbye' is wishing the Christian god to be with a person.

When, exactly, am I able to will my own thoughts without Christianity invading them? Now that paganism is resurgent (or, at least, reformed) are those who eat chocolate Yule Logs now worshipping pagan deities?

I say Merry Xmas. Anything less is an offense to X, the founder of our great holiday.

What I did on Christmas:

Got up at 12:00. Saw parents and brother. Had booze. Opened presents. Had food and more booze. Sat in front of fire reading book. Had booze. Ate more food. Went out. Had booze. Saw friends. Had booze.

What about the above is worshipping Christ?

The "Had booze" obviously... :p
Actually agree with you 100% Chumbly

"Differently-abled" simply emphasizes the fact that many people with disabilities are quite capable of accomplishing a particular task or performing a particular function, only in a different manner or taking more time or effort than people without the disability in question.
So they are less capable of accomplishing it. They have a limiting factor. They are, thus, handicapped in their ability.

You can overcome your handicap - but becoming handicapped is a loss, not a fair trade.


(I also fail to see how labels are relevant to whether one who is liable for a tort should have to pay for the damage they cause,[...])
Because if the person has become differently able, but not in any way handicapped as a result of the accident, there is no harm done.


Call me handicapped or crippled and you may find yourself in a condition in which those terms apply to you. :eek::p:wink:
I presume your "different ability" is a mental condition, specifically inability to control aggressive impulses?

Well, in some way, you are differently abled, you won't go to prison after committing a crime of violence. But a forced treatment hospital is probably not all that nice either.


and/or why we shouldn't ensure that everyone has access to healthcare.)
You're not from US, I presume?
In US, healthcare is commercial and criminally expensive (I believe it could qualify as extortion), and you're faced with outrageous bills if you need significant treatment.

Unless you are one of the: a) In the military, b) Over 65, c) Disabled.
In these cases, you are eligible for receiving comprehensive healthcare at a greatly reduced cost.

Now, if we decide that "differently-able" people are not disabled, they no longer meet the criteria for Medicare.


I'm not even going to address Vault 10's inane argument that someone who is differently-abled must be treated exactly the same as someone who is "normal," but we should feel pity for the disabled.
Well, I am differently abled.

I can't say I'm a geek, or can't socialize, I readily make friends with people ranging from rednecks to San-Franciscans, even easier than most, but... well, I don't think I do it naturally. It doesn't come to me all that easily, when I had to serve in unrestricted line duty for half a year, I very nearly came off my bolts. I lack the tolerance, I get annoyed by people's flaws, tend to be overly demanding. I also lack this instinct to "keep in touch" with people, I can meet a friend I haven't seen in a couple years and feel and act as if we've met yesterday. And my face memory and recognition lack a little, not grossly, but I need more time to remember others' names than they to remember mine. It can be pretty embarrassing.
And, not to mention, I'm absolutely blind to people's feelings. I can read the more clear signs on their face or in their voice when talking, but not outside it. I'm the last one to learn that Carl is distressed, or it's obvious that Alice loves Bob, or Dan looks like he has a headache. That is if anyone tells me, since otherwise I'll never notice it at all.

On the other hand, when it comes to anything that has nuts and bolts, I'm a natural. Not just very good, but on an entirely different level. I can look at a moving car and almost see its entire drivetrain in work, see the forces between the tires and the ground, not just imagine, but see it as clearly as you see her feelings on Alice's face. Not just the fact that it's moving, but the amount of forces everywhere, from inside or the outside. When driving, I feel exactly how much grip each wheel gets, if any slides or spins, and how exactly is the car's weight shifting. In a motor trial, I can just look at the wheels and tell the partner "put a plank here, and dig a bit there", where people with a decade of experience on me have to spend minutes in trial and error. I can't diagnose an engine as well as a professional mechanic, though, but I can at least tell where the fault is much easier than most.

This understanding of technology is not entirely useless in providing for myself, either. I've come through a very difficult college program... no, not easily, it was very hard, but I've come through, half the people, already hand-picked, didn't. The job came with the deal of not paying a cent for all education expenses (short of booze). Not a particularly bad one, pays over five times the national average. That means I pay more in tax alone than most people earn in total. So my debt to the society, whatever there is, is paid in full as well. And I think I have a very good career ahead, it's not impossible that in a couple decades I'll be able to point to our newest and best warship, causing panic among lesser nations' admirals, and say, "I did this". Or, if I pursue a Navy career, command or be the SIC on it. Well, all very unlikely, as people in such high positions tend to be naturals like me, so I'd meet my match. But not impossible - at least it's better than most people can say about their chances.

I am differently abled.

That's what being differently abled means.

I also have special needs - while I'm just mildly annoyed by flaws in people, I'm absolutely unwilling to tolerate imperfection in machines. I need top-grade video and audio equipment to enjoy movies and music, and I not merely want, but need two cars. Good thing a certain German family, most of whom are named Ferdinands, are as perfectionist as I am, so they know exactly what car I need, and make it. These special needs, they make the life so expensive. It's not easy.


Fortunately, my different abilities can provide for my special needs.

So they are less capable of accomplishing it. They have a limiting factor. They are, thus, handicapped in their ability.

You can overcome your handicap - but becoming handicapped is a loss, not a fair trade.

1. Is everyone who is differently-abled lesser human beings because of it?

2. So your position is fuck what disabled people wish to be called, they are really "handicapped" or "cripples"? And this is because of .....?



Because if the person has become differently able, but not in any way handicapped as a result of the accident, there is no harm done.

The usage of the outdated and offensive term "handicapped" is not necessary for their to have been harm caused by a tort.


I presume your "different ability" is a mental condition, specifically inability to control aggressive impulses?

Well, in some way, you are differently abled, you won't go to prison after committing a crime of violence. But a forced treatment hospital is probably not all that nice either.

I had that coming. :wink:



You're not from US, I presume?
In US, healthcare is commercial and criminally expensive (I believe it could qualify as extortion), and you're faced with outrageous bills if you need significant treatment.

Unless you are one of the: a) In the military, b) Over 65, c) Disabled.
In these cases, you are eligible for receiving comprehensive healthcare at a greatly reduced cost.

Now, if we decide that "differently-able" people are not disabled, they no longer meet the criteria for Medicare.

I am from the US, am disabled, and meet the criteria for Medicare. I think I know a bit about the subject, thank you very much.

Regardless, you seem to think that there is something of substance that requires the use of certain terms instead of others. Yet, you ignore that the use of language to describe a condition may be most meaningful to those in that condition.


Well, I am differently abled.

*snips long, irrelevant rant*

I am differently abled.

That's what being differently abled means.

I also have special needs - while I'm just mildly annoyed by flaws in people, I'm absolutely unwilling to tolerate imperfection in machines. I need top-grade video and audio equipment to enjoy movies and music, and I not merely want, but need two cars. Good thing a certain German family, most of whom are named Ferdinands, are as perfectionist as I am, so they know exactly what car I need, and make it. These special needs, they make the life so expensive. It's not easy.


Fortunately, my different abilities can provide for my special needs.

Ha, Ha. So you can't properly use either the term "differently-abled" or "special needs."

Are black people properly referred to as Negros or Niggers? Or is your insistence on dated, objectionable language selective?

It's chanukah, so why should we go around saying "merry christmas"?

1. Is everyone who is differently-abled lesser human beings because of it?
Since that would make me a lesser being too, obviously they aren't. They're just as good as normal able people, often better.


2. So your position is fuck what disabled people wish to be called, they are really "handicapped" or "cripples"?
Call yourself whatever you want, as long as 1) you don't force me to call you that, 2) your choice of words doesn't make it a lie.


The usage of the outdated and offensive term "handicapped" is not necessary for their to have been harm caused by a tort.
So "handicapped" is now offensive? Why, because it's true? It doesn't say anything about the person's ability (unlike 'disabled'), doesn't make assessments, merely states that they have some condition that makes it more difficult for them to perform some task than for most people. It's as inoffensive as it can get while being correct.

You're trying to turn the language into one big lie, similar to Newspeak, where words and phrases are used to express what they don't mean.


Regardless, you seem to think that there is something of substance that requires the use of certain terms instead of others.
Yes, there is. It's called language. One of the main reasons English is the world's leading language is because it's so simple and logical. Every word has a clear meaning. Every phrase's meaning can be deducted from the words comprising it.

Euphemisms obscure that meaning. But there are different kinds of euphemisms. Let's take the certain sanitary need, for instance. "Bathroom" slightly hides its meaning, but since the bath and the WC are in the same room, it makes perfect sense. "Restroom" is on the edge, since it can also mean a recreation room, but, at least, you do get some "rest" sitting there, so it's merely obscure, but not misleading. Now, if you called it "Sterile office", it would be a blatant lie, because it's not an office in any way, and usually not sterile at all.


Ha, Ha. So you can't properly use either the term "differently-abled" or "special needs."
As a matter of fact, I can.

I have different abilities than the average person, that makes me differently able.

I have needs most people don't have, that means I have special needs.

Any use of a phrase to mean what it directly means is correct and proper. It's euphemistic uses that may be right or wrong depending on how correct the euphemism is.


Are black people properly referred to as Negros or Niggers?
No, I presume they aren't. They are properly referred as Differently White.


Fortunately, we have terms "Black" and "African-American", which are not only inoffensive, but also more correct and logical than the N-word, as most of them don't come from Nigeria.

So my question is is it better to use Happy holidays to minimize offense on the day of the holiday? Or should i use Merry Xmas on the day and eve of the holiday?

I just dont say anything. Like when my relatives wish me it I just say ya.

Quite... if 'Merry Christmas' was a religious mantra.

I feel sorry for all you folks who live in some horrible land where no 'Merry Christmas' is without an hour-long sermon on the glory of Christ, but I live in a place where, happily, an atheist like myself can say 'Merry Christmas' to his atheist or agnostic friends, wishing them all the festive cheer of the period, while never meaning in any fashion except the dusty entomological that they should worship Jehovah.

We recognise the origin of the phrase, and the fact that many people still view Christmas as a holy day, but we do are not offended by it nor perceive it to be preaching. Just as we do not think saying 'goodbye' to one another is preaching, nor using the word 'holiday', nor using the phrase 'bless you' after sneezing.

I do not praise Thor every time I say 'Thursday', nor Odin when I say 'Wednesday'. Nor do I praise Njörðr when I eat a Yule log. I am not trying to summon devils when I dress up on Halloween, nor do I wish to burn the Pope when I "ooh" and "aah" at fireworks on November 5th. I am not deliberating on the trials and tribulations of Jesus when cooking pancakes on Shrove Tuesday, nor am I proselytising to my friends when we gorge on chocolate around Easter.

If you do not wish to celebrate Christmas, then fair play to you. But don't come on here arguing that I am chanting a mantra or manically preaching at people when I wish them a good time with family and friends. As folks on NS:G all very keen to remind, Christmas is merely the new name to a long, long succession of Winter festivals. Most of the words we use are old and come attached with differing meanings; but most of us can differentiate between a word's entomology and its current usage.

I am not ignorant of the origin of the word 'Christmas', nor that Christians still use the word to mean the day of the birth of Christ, but one look at the TV in any Western country will show you that it means far, far more than that today.

Merry Christmas is religious mantra. It means "enjoy (the) birth of the messiah (in my religion)".

You can say it's meaningless, now, because people that call themselves christian are less than observant. You can say it's meaningless because people in christian countries don't necessarily follow all the strictures inherent in the 'christian culture'.

But the fact will still remain, it IS a religious holy-day - even if poorly observed. The fact will still remain, the 'greeting' is still intimately connected with religion.

You can argue that more stuff has been added to a devout christ-mas, and you'd be right. But if the core of the celebration was... for example, burning Jews... it wouldn't matter how much extra shit has been added on. The core of the Christmas celebration (and we ARE talking about 'christ-mas', not about sol invictus, Saturnalia, or some chthonic seasonal feast) is observance of the earthly incarnation of the central figure of christianity.

Your argument seems to be: "I don't care about the religious implications of this religious phrase, so it's okay for me to preach it to other people".

I would use both, Greed. Saying Happy Holidays doesn't has the same ring saying Merry Christmas does. When I was told that in the US, one shouldn't use Merry Christmas anymore, I was weirded out.

Fortunately, we have terms "Black" and "African-American", which are not only inoffensive, but also more correct and logical than the N-word, as most of them don't come from Nigeria.

Which isn't the origin of 'the N word'...

In my city, everyone has to say Happy Holidays. Happy Holidays just doesn't sound right to me. Merry Christmas means the birth of Christ, and a lot more. I always prefer Merry Christmas.

"Disabled" is an euphemism already, actually. The word used to be "crippled".

It's Biblical, at that.

Anyone can be 'disabled'. And the problem with the term is that it's not only unhelpful (because it doesn't tell you what the 'ability' is that has been 'dissed') but often entirely misleading. A great example would be someone I knew that played basketball (rather extraordinarily well) from a wheelchair. Could he run around to play? No - but he could compete on better than equal terms with most on taking shots, and could actually play competetively with 'normal' players of reasonable skill.

Or he could beat the hell out of me, because I suck at basketball.

'Disabled' is a poor descriptor. The person I'm talking about could play the game... just differently in some details. And if the average person tried to compete against him in a wheelchair game, they'd have got wiped. Why? Because he isn't DIS-abled, he is 'differently'-able.

You've got it backwards.

EVERYONE is "differently abled". I can do things you can't do, you can do things I can't do. Tiger Woods and I are both "differently abled". I can't hit a green in regulation. He can't improvise over the chord changes to "In Walked Bud" by Thelonious Monk. The adverb "differently" adds absolutely nothing to the word "abled". We are all "differently abled".

DISabled, however, is perfectly accurate. The standard human physiology has been altered due to birth defect (why is it okay to use "defect" in that term, but nowhere else?) or some sort of trauma. Some physiological ABILITY has been reduced or eliminated.

Euphemism de-humanizes language, and tells us nothing about the person in question. Some people think that the problem with people's attitudes toward some segments of society is somehow the fault of language, instead of the insensitive asshole using the language. This approach has never worked. It's the prohibition model.

That's why I consider "handicapped" the best term to use. It directly addresses the idea of what's different about the person, while not making any statement about their ability - negative or positive.

I think it's most likely that the guy you've mentioned plays basketball well despite his handicap, not because of it.

[QUOTE=Hydesland;14338235]I like this quote from the LA times: "In a valiant effort to find a kinder term than handicapped, the Democratic National Committee has coined differently abled. The committee itself shows signs of being differently abled in the use of English."

How exactly is "handicapped" in any way unkind? The worst you could say about it is that it's inaccurate.

*snip*

The usage of the outdated and offensive term "handicapped" is not necessary for there to have been harm caused by a tort.

*snip*

So "handicapped" is now offensive? Why, because it's true? It doesn't say anything about the person's ability (unlike 'disabled'), doesn't make assessments, merely states that they have some condition that makes it more difficult for them to perform some task than for most people. It's as inoffensive as it can get while being correct.

You're trying to turn the language into one big lie, similar to Newspeak, where words and phrases are used to express what they don't mean.

You're both mostly wrong:

c.1653, from hand in cap, a game whereby two bettors would engage a neutral umpire to determine the odds in an unequal contest. The bettors would put their hands holding forfeit money into a hat or cap. The umpire would announce the odds and the bettors would withdraw their hands -- hands full meaning that they accepted the odds and the bet was on, hands empty meaning they did not accept the bet and were willing to forfeit the money. If one forfeited, then the money went to the other. If both agreed on either forfeiting or going ahead with the wager, then the umpire kept the money as payment. The custom, though not the name, is attested from 14c. Reference to horse racing is 1754 (Handy-Cap Match), where the umpire decrees the superior horse should carry extra weight as a "handicap;" this led to sense of "encumbrance, disability" first recorded 1890. The verb sense of "equalize chances of competitors" is first recorded 1852, but is implied in the horse-race sense. Meaning "put at a disadvantage" is 1864. The main modern sense, "disability," is the last to develop; handicapped (adj.) is 1915.

The problem isn't the terminology. The problem is someone using the terminology in a derogatory or limiting manner, and how that person acts toward those whom the term addresses. Just like the problem isn't with the word "******", but with the racist asshole who uses it pejoratively. I've got no problem with Chris Rock using it, and even if I did, he's most likely not to care what I think. Many, if not most, Black people have taken that word back for their own use, and it's now verboten for anyone but them.

In addition, Vault10? You've gotta be kidding about English being clear. Go look up the word with the longest definition in English, and tell me that all the possible uses of that word are in any way clear to someone who's not born speaking it. The word is "set". Sorry, but your assertion of clarity is way off the mark.

In my city, everyone has to say Happy Holidays. Happy Holidays just doesn't sound right to me. Merry Christmas means the birth of Christ, and a lot more. I always prefer Merry Christmas.

Uh, what now? Which city is this?

So delusional.

"Look! The largest and most prevalent religion in my country is Christianity! But Christmas is secular, yes it is!"

The continuous comparisons to the Old Norse religion are even more amusing.

How about, in a thousand years when all vestiges of Christianity have faded away to be forgotten by all but the most feverant of musty historians, you try that little argument, m'kay?

Y'know, I usually love it when you get bitchy. You usually have good reason. Not so much this time, and it reflects poorly on you when someone presents a reasonable argument. You disagree, and that's great. But saying the same thing over and then getting belligerent when you weren't attacked is beneath you. You're not that petty.

You disagree. Terrific. I'm asking, in the name of all of your previous superior arguments and explanations, that you agree to disagree instead of mocking and insulting someone who's presented a sensible argument of which you disapprove. Better to just leave it as nobody's budging. Otherwise, you look just plain mean.

It's chanukah, so why should we go around saying "merry christmas"?
So we don't come and burn down the synagogues, obv.

willfully ignorant

Unfortunately, your lack of understanding of British culture is the most prevalent here.

and i'm afraid you're under the mistaken impression -snip

This.

Yes yes, because you personally have a particular belief about the absolute secularity of the phrase

See, this is where you don't understand. No-one is arguing for 'absolute secularity'. We are arguing for less religious and more secular, with the latter being more important for most of the population. Someone could say 'Merry Christmas' with only the intention of 'goodwill in this period', and this would be understood by others, any other associations they have might exist regardless of whether the speaker has them as well, but the basis lies in goodwill and not religion.

No-one is saying there are no religious associations, simply that they are not the primary meaning of the phrase now.

<SNIP> Your argument seems to be: "I don't care about the religious implications of this religious phrase, so it's okay for me to preach it to other people".

GnI, I think you need to relax a bit...

Do you honestly believe that when I wish someone a merry christmas, that this: "enjoy (the) birth of the messiah (in my religion)", is what I am saying?

I'll give you a hint in case you don't remember, I'm an atheist.

Unfortunately, your lack of understanding of British culture is the most prevalent here.



This.



See, this is where you don't understand. No-one is arguing for 'absolute secularity'. We are arguing for less religious and more secular, with the latter being more important for most of the population. Someone could say 'Merry Christmas' with only the intention of 'goodwill in this period', and this would be understood by others, any other associations they have might exist regardless of whether the speaker has them as well, but the basis lies in goodwill and not religion.

No-one is saying there any no religious associations, simply that they are not the primary meaning of the phrase now.

Same as when someone sneezes - I will say 'bless you' even though that is derived from some mediaeval religious belief.

Its not X-mas, it's Christmas

You've got it backwards.

EVERYONE is "differently abled". I can do things you can't do, you can do things I can't do. Tiger Woods and I are both "differently abled". I can't hit a green in regulation. He can't improvise over the chord changes to "In Walked Bud" by Thelonious Monk. The adverb "differently" adds absolutely nothing to the word "abled". We are all "differently abled".


We are, indeed, all differently able. And yet, we don't refer to ourselves under that paradigm. So - when you DO use the phrasing 'differently-able', everyone knows what you mean.


DISabled, however, is perfectly accurate. The standard human physiology has been altered due to birth defect (why is it okay to use "defect" in that term, but nowhere else?) or some sort of trauma. Some physiological ABILITY has been reduced or eliminated.


DISabled would mean that you are no longer able. Clearly this is not true. DISabled is usually entirely inaccurate.


Euphemism de-humanizes language,


On the contrary, I would argue that euphemism IS humanised language.


...and tells us nothing about the person in question.


In this particular instance, the 'euphemism' tells us that the person is not, perhaps, able to access the full complement of tools many of us take for granted... but suggests that they still have tools.


Some people think that the problem with people's attitudes toward some segments of society is somehow the fault of language, instead of the insensitive asshole using the language. This approach has never worked.

I would argue that's exactly wrong. I would argue that attitudes are absolutely the children of our ability to express ideas in certain fashions. I would say that the argument is immediately obvious just in the different ways in which African-Americans have been treated since the (accepted) language has been transformed.

Its not X-mas, it's Christmas

It's not Christmas, it's Saturnalia.

I am to blame for your words, now?

How exactly are my comments 'getting to you'?

Because they're annoying.

Happy holidays is easier to say in English, so in this case I'd choose it.

In my native language the term doesn't really exist.

Because they're annoying.

What's that to do with me?

My words don't annoy me - maybe you should ask yourself why you respond with so much vitriol?

Christmas is a pagan event, with a thin paint of judeo-christian washed over the top, and mostly ignored in favour of mammon. Is that what annoys you? The fact that people trot out the same lame-ass lies about 'the reason for the season' and similar crap?

Is it the fact that not being christian... is attacked? I can understand how both these thing might annoy you.

Is it the fact that a lot of people mouth hollow platitudes that they either don't believe, but say anyway... or that they DO believe, but say anyway? I can see how that could antagonise you. It means you're exposed to something that is either preaching, or fake preaching.

Merry Christmas is religious mantra. It means "enjoy (the) birth of the messiah (in my religion)".
You're begging the question.

You can say it's meaningless, now, because people that call themselves christian are less than observant. You can say it's meaningless because people in christian countries don't necessarily follow all the strictures inherent in the 'christian culture'.
I'm not saying it's meaningless. It certainly has lots of meaning, but different meaning to different people. To Christians, it means a celebration of the birth of their saviour, but to many, many people, it means a time of non-religious fun. As has been said multiple times in this thread, meanings of words, festivals, etc., change over time and from person to person. You surely recognise this:

...when someone sneezes - I will say 'bless you' even though that is derived from some mediaeval religious belief.
Now, as you are sure to object, 'Merry Christmas' has a much more religious overtone to many people than 'bless you'. But the point still stands; many other people simply don't take the phrase to mean anything to do with Jesus.

Further still, the word isn't even taken as literally as you do by a huge chunk of Christians, never mind non-Christians; those of the Reformed churches in no way celebrate the Mass of Christ, the phrases literal meaning. Your position would seem to imply that the many Reformed Christians preach the correctness of the Roman Catholic Church's dogma every time they say 'Merry Christmas'.

Most importantly, you're ignoring the actual practice of a good deal of those who celebrate Christmas. You just need to observe any number of secular Christmas celebrations in popular culture; TV, film, r/l people, teh interweb:
Christmas is celebrated throughout the Christian population, but is also celebrated by many non-Christians as a secular, cultural festival.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas).

But the fact will still remain, it IS a religious holy-day - even if poorly observed. The fact will still remain, the 'greeting' is still intimately connected with religion.
I'm not denying this. I don't know who you're arguing against, for it isn't me.

Of course Christmas is a religious holiday (for some). Of course the greeting is connected to Christianity. But -- like Shrove Tuesday, Halloween (to be more accurate, the day after, All Saints Day), Fireworks Night, not to mention all the Festivals and holidays based up on non-Christian religious ceremony -- many people celebrate the holidays secularly, full in the knowledge of the holiday's origins.

If you wish to continue down this line of argument, I don't see how you can avoid also arguing that making pancakes on Shrove Tuesday is 'preaching', that whenever an individual says 'goodbye' to another they are 'preaching', and innumerable other obviously ludicrous notions.

Your argument seems to be: "I don't care about the religious implications of this religious phrase, so it's okay for me to preach it to other people".
Once again, begging the question. The whole debate is whether the phrase, to all people at all times, is a religious one that is in itself preaching.

Christmas is a pagan event, with a thin paint of judeo-christian washed over the top
Uhu... doesn't mean it's not Christmas, though.
Is it the fact that not being christian... is attacked? I can understand how both these thing might annoy you.
Hydesland is actually Jewish.
Is it the fact that a lot of people mouth hollow platitudes that they either don't believe, but say anyway... or that they DO believe, but say anyway? I can see how that could antagonise you. It means you're exposed to something that is either preaching, or fake preaching.
"Merry Christmas" is just phatic talk. That's about it, and unless you're an incredibly smug atheist, there's nothing more to it than that. As an atheist myself - it's just a polite thing to say if someone wishes you merry Christmas themself.

It's not Christmas, it's Saturnalia.

Or Soles Invictus, the day to pay homage to the God Sun, according to the Roman calendar.

What's that to do with me?


Because you make the comments.


My words don't annoy me - maybe you should ask yourself why you respond with so much vitriol?


Because nothing seems to get through to you.


Christmas is a pagan event, with a thin paint of judeo-christian washed over the top, and mostly ignored in favour of mammon. Is that what annoys you?

Of course not.


The fact that people trot out the same lame-ass lies about 'the reason for the season' and similar crap?


Nope.


Is it the fact that not being christian... is attacked? I can understand how both these thing might annoy you.


I don't even see how 'not being Christian' is attacked.


Is it the fact that a lot of people mouth hollow platitudes that they either don't believe, but say anyway... or that they DO believe, but say anyway? I can see how that could antagonise you. It means you're exposed to something that is either preaching, or fake preaching.

Nope. I really think you need to read some Wittgenstein, maybe his later stuff.

Its not X-mas, it's Christmas

It can be both, as has been demonstrated many times in this thread. Do keep up.

Same as when someone sneezes - I will say 'bless you' even though that is derived from some mediaeval religious belief.

Nope. Roman.

We are, indeed, all differently able. And yet, we don't refer to ourselves under that paradigm. So - when you DO use the phrasing 'differently-able', everyone knows what you mean.

No, everyone doesn't. I'm sure you like to think they do.

DISabled would mean that you are no longer able. Clearly this is not true. DISabled is usually entirely inaccurate.

Oh, shit fire and save matches, are you serious? DISabled means you are no longer able to use some part of your physiology in its usual way, through lessening or loss of function or the anatomy itself. You have to stretch so far to make yourself believe what you typed there, it's ridiculous. EVERYONE, and I say that with complete confidence, knows what disabled means. If they didn't, why would they call those blue parking spaces "disabled" or "handicapped" parking spaces? You can't wish away correct language with euphemism without the consent of those speaking. I've not heard the laughable "differently abled" even one-hundredth of the number of times I've heard either "disabled" or "handicapped".

Disabled means you are no longer able in some way. Ignore it all you want, it's still true.

On the contrary, I would argue that euphemism IS humanised language.

In some cases, you're correct. I agree that chairman should be chairperson. I also think we don't need specifically feminine suffixes, either (such as "actress"). But when euphemism takes "shell shock" through "battle fatigue" and "operational exhaustion" and ends at "post traumatic stress disorder", it's gone so far from teh human source of the thing it's describing, that there's no humanity left in the term. There is no prejudice in "disabled" or "handicapped", and only deception in "differently abled".

In this particular instance, the 'euphemism' tells us that the person is not, perhaps, able to access the full complement of tools many of us take for granted... but suggests that they still have tools.

How can you read that from "differently abled"? All that tells you is that someone has different abilities than someone else, and that's true for ever person on the planet! You don't GET less specific than that.

I would argue that's exactly wrong. I would argue that attitudes are absolutely the children of our ability to express ideas in certain fashions. I would say that the argument is immediately obvious just in the different ways in which African-Americans have been treated since the (accepted) language has been transformed.

You gonna provide an example, or just leave me to guess? I have no idea what you're inventing with that paragraph.

By the way "I would argue" doesn't mean a damn thing when you don't actually argue anything after typing it.

Nope. Roman.


Well Christian Rome under Pope Gregory I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_bless_you
- the middle ages begins with the fall of Rome in the 5th century

It depends. When you don't know the person's religion, "Happy Holidays" is good. It's also useful as a verbal shorthand for "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year". However, I usually use "Merry Christmas", because most of the people in this area celebrate Christmas, though I'm perfectly willing to say "Happy Holidays", also. Additionally, there's nothing offensive about "Happy Holidays", but I can see how someone might get upset over "Merry Christmas" due to its implications of Christianity.

You are incorrectly assuming that people want answers or seek understanding. Most people simply do not wish to know the background of their own dearly held beliefs, customs or whatever and get especially annoyed when people point out they are not as noble and pretty as they think. And this is not limited to religion - ask the animallovers out there how people respond when they are told where their eggs and beef come from ;)Or when you tell people where their clothes come from.

You're begging the question.


Not at all. "Merry Christmas" is definitively religious. More than that, it has explicit connotation that you can ONLY argue against by saying that it is usually uttered carelessly, or by people that are either non-christian or effectively so.

There's nothing circular about it.

It's the evidence that answers the 'question'.


Now, as you are sure to object, 'Merry Christmas' has a much more religious overtone to many people than 'bless you'. But the point still stands; many other people simply don't take the phrase to mean anything to do with Jesus.


I don't say "Bless You" either.


Further still, the word isn't even taken as literally as you do by a huge chunk of Christians, never mind non-Christians; those of the Reformed churches in no way celebrate the Mass of Christ, the phrases literal meaning. Your position would seem to imply that the many Reformed Christians preach the correctness of the Roman Catholic Church's dogma every time they say 'Merry Christmas'.


Actually, my position doesn't argue that - the fact that the tradition has been maintained, does.


If you wish to continue down this line of argument, I don't see how you can avoid also arguing that making pancakes on Shrove Tuesday is 'preaching', that whenever an individual says 'goodbye' to another they are 'preaching', and innumerable other obviously ludicrous notions.


Pancakes? Not so much. Hot Cross Buns? Sure.


Once again, begging the question. The whole debate is whether the phrase, to all people at all times, is a religious one that is in itself preaching.

Actually, that has been my argument. I like the fact that it is now considered the whole debate, though.

The 'whole debate' has been about whether or not it's offensive to wish people 'merry christmas' or 'happy holidays'. My argument has been that it can be offensive to wish people 'merry christmas', because it is intrinsically religious.

I don't even see how 'not being Christian' is attacked.


I suspect this means you pay less attention to news programs than I do.

No, everyone doesn't. I'm sure you like to think they do.


You, yourself, fully understand. You just don't agree.


Oh, shit fire and save matches, are you serious? DISabled means you are no longer able to use some part of your physiology in its usual way, through lessening or loss of function or the anatomy itself. You have to stretch so far to make yourself believe what you typed there, it's ridiculous. EVERYONE, and I say that with complete confidence, knows what disabled means. If they didn't, why would they call those blue parking spaces "disabled" or "handicapped" parking spaces? You can't wish away correct language with euphemism without the consent of those speaking. I've not heard the laughable "differently abled" even one-hundredth of the number of times I've heard either "disabled" or "handicapped".


An appeal to popularity?

You raised the spectre of the 'actual' meaning. DISabled means you have lost ability. It is totally unspecific... which is also the spectre you raise against 'differently able'. Indeed, without any further elucidation, DISabled would mean you have NO ability. That's GOT TO be less accurate than just saying the ability is different.


Disabled means you are no longer able in some way. Ignore it all you want, it's still true.


Why would I ignore that? It's what I'm saying. It means 'no longer able'.


In some cases, you're correct. I agree that chairman should be chairperson. I also think we don't need specifically feminine suffixes, either (such as "actress"). But when euphemism takes "shell shock" through "battle fatigue" and "operational exhaustion" and ends at "post traumatic stress disorder", it's gone so far from teh human source of the thing it's describing, that there's no humanity left in the term.


Actually, 'shell shock' would be the euphemism, and you've basically tracked an exact reversal, since the phrasing slowly trends towards a more accurate description of the specifics.


How can you read that from "differently abled"? All that tells you is that someone has different abilities than someone else, and that's true for ever person on the planet! You don't GET less specific than that.


Except the 'able' majority doesn't refer to itself as 'differently able'... we just call ourselves 'able'.

In that context, 'differently able' means "I'm still able, just not in the exact same ways".


You gonna provide an example, or just leave me to guess? I have no idea what you're inventing with that paragraph.


I'm not inventing anything. The attitudes towards African Americans in response to the shift of the language - specifically, such language artifacts as 'n****r' - is not an invention.


By the way "I would argue" doesn't mean a damn thing when you don't actually argue anything after typing it.

How can you respond to the argument (even if just claiming I'm 'inventing' it), and then claim it wasn't there?

Read a biology book. Maybe not while you are eating eggs.
Well, I'm not going to go to a library, sneaking in boiled eggs, and read all the books on bird anatomy while very slowly and covertly consuming the poultry.

So could you link me to an article that tells that astounding fact, or scan the proper pages and link to them, or type it in a spoiler box? (Illustrated is best, though). I promise I'll read it thoroughly, and look at all the pictures, while eating three very soft-boiled eggs.

Strikes me as something of an American convention, much like the utterly entertaining "differently-abled".

When someone would use the phrase "differently-abled" when engaged in a conversation with me, I'm afraid my depraved mind would immediately translate it into "cripple". Yes, I'm a horrible person. Strangely enough I do not perform such vile mental tricks in the back of my mind when someone speaks of "handicapped persons".

I suspect this means you pay less attention to news programs than I do.

I meant in the context of when someone says 'merry Christmas' to you, they are actually attacking the fact that you're not religious. If you honestly believe this to be the case, I suggest you consult a therapist immediately about possible problems with severe paranoia.

Not at all.
The discussion is whether or not 'Merry Christmas' is an inherently religious term. Defining it as such is exactly begging the question.

"Merry Christmas"... has explicit connotation that you can ONLY argue against by saying that it is usually uttered... by people that are either non-christian or effectively so.
That is what I'm arguing.

Try and keep up.

I don't say "Bless You" either.
Then do you ever say 'goodbye'? Or 'Thursday'? If you speak English, you won't be able to avoid language that has, in the past, religious connotations; Christian or not. But whether you say any of the above or not matters very little. Many, many people do say these things, and do not mean anything religious by them

Stop grinding your axe. You wish society to be more secular; and more power to you. But inditing any word, phrase or behaviour that, at any point in time no matter how distant, had religious connotations (and it's hard to see how you can avoid a position as extreme as this, if you believe that saying 'Merry Christmas' or eating a hot cross bun is "manic street-preaching"), seems a rather foolish road to travel down.

Especially when you consider the ever-changing nature of language and culture.

Actually, my position doesn't argue that - the fact that the tradition has been maintained, does.
The tradition isn't being maintained; Reformed Christians do not celebrate Mass on Christmas. So, either you can claim this to be false, or accept that meaning of a phrase can change depending on who's using it.

Pancakes? Not so much. Hot Cross Buns? Sure.
You think buying or eating a hot cross bun is inherently religious, to all people at all times? Accepting a reductio ad absurdum isn't usually the way to progress in a debate...

My argument has been that it can be offensive to wish people 'merry christmas', because it is intrinsically religious.
And I have shown your premise that 'Merry Christmas' is intrinsically religious to be patently ridiculous.

It's Christmas, x-mas sounds stupid. :p

It's Christmas, x-mas sounds stupid. :p

Necro thread much?

Necro thread much?

tis' opposite-mas you friendly generous young woman :wink:

Damn, I thought Christmas came Early this year, :(

tis' opposite-mas you friendly generous young woman :wink:

Have a miserable opposite-mas!

Damn, I thought Christmas came Early this year, :(
Early Christmas reached a critical mass a few years ago when the Rockettes did a Christmas dance at a Fourth of July parade. It was then that Christmas officially came as early as it possibly could, any earlier and it was just late for the previous Christmas.

Necro thread much?

Just stating my opionion, how is that differant from the rest of the folks here?

Just stating my opionion, how is that differant from the rest of the folks here?

It's not that. It's just this thread is a really old thread. It is suggested you make a new one instead of revive a dead one.

It's not that. It's just this thread is a really old thread. It is suggested you make a new one instead of revive a dead one.

But, the argument's already played out so well in this one, itd be a shame to spoil it with a new one, :rolleyes:

Damn, I thought Christmas came Early this year, :(*fills Skallvia's stocking* *with poo*

*fills Skallvia's stocking* *with poo*

http://meow.catsplz.com/cats/pictures/234/I-see-what-you-did-there.jpg

It's not that. It's just this thread is a really old thread. It is suggested you make a new one instead of revive a dead one.

Noted

Christ, it's fucking April. Can't wait 8 months before we start this shit again?

Holy Holiday Figure!, it's fucking April. Can't wait 8 months before we start this shit again?

there ya go, :p

Over here everyone says Merry Christmas.

Neither.