74 YEARS AGO, 18 YEAR OLD MEN WERE STORMING BEACHES UNDER HEAVY MACHINE GUN FIRE... TODAY, 18 YEAR OLD BOYS ARE LIKE, "YOUR WORDS HURT ME... | image tagged in men,boys,storming beaches | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
4,274 views, 149 upvotes, Made by Tudorp 3 months ago menboysstorming beaches
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
11 ups, 1 reply
Skeleton vacation | WHAT HAPPENED TO "STICKS AND STONES MAY BREAK MY BONES BUT WORDS WILL NEVER HURT ME" | image tagged in skeleton vacation | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
1 up, 1 reply
The joke of throwing a dictionary at the one saying it
reply
1 up
Bad Luck Brian Meme | ". .. WORDS WILL NEVER HURT ME" 30 VOLUME ENCYCLOPEDIA FALLS ON HIM | image tagged in memes,bad luck brian | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
10 ups
Let's have courses in gender identity at every university | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Sparta Leonidas Meme | THEY WERE PROGRAMMED TO BE HURT BY EVERYTHING EVEN ABSTRACT IDEAS THAT DON’T DIRECTLY APPLY TO THEM | image tagged in memes,sparta leonidas | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
No no, those who run around being offended by everything are just attention w**res. Gotta differentiate.
reply
1 up
I’M OFFENDED | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
5 ups
so true
reply
2 ups
I'm not buying it.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
He looks like a guy I used to watch on MySpace a long time ago.
reply
2 ups
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
man teens today would have killed them selfs if they were in ww1 or 2 ok the killing self thing is already happening which for some reason makes a good joke but still no wifi and a bunch of war and death
reply
2 ups
War. Death. No wifi. These are the 3 main tortures that soldiers must face.
reply
0 ups
reply
3 ups
reply
3 ups
reply
1 up
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Well I'm going to go into the air Force or marienes
reply
0 ups
Congrats. I am an Air Force vet myself.
reply
0 ups
It's good to have emotions and be empathic. The guy on the right seems to be an annoying shit though. He has that "plsss punch me in the face" posture and expression.
reply
0 ups
reply
0 ups
Thank God my dad raised me right.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Some people take memes (and the internet) WAY too seriously. Hey, I think I'll make a meme saying that.. lol.. Personally, most anything, and almost everything I post publically on the internet is in "jest". I don't take the internet, especially social media very seriously, never have, never will. Memes to me are satire, and most of what I would make, or post are too, and not meant to be taken seriously, or micro analyzed. Just sayin.. ;) If you take any of them seriously and literally, then you might have deeper issues.. ;)
reply
0 ups
Aww 'man' - don't do that, naww, don't.

Ya made a statement,

Ya made it in a meme,

Now stop be an emo wuss snowflake and deal with it.
reply
4 ups, 4 replies
All of them? All 18-year-olds today say that? Oops, my mistake. You're actually making an absurd generalization.
reply
6 ups
It is actually just a generalization. Not all 18 year olds, because we currently have many 18 year olds serving in the military, and in battle zones. Don't take memes so seriously.. ;)
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
And I would venture to say that not all 18 year olds were storming Normandy under heavy machine gun fire during WWII. However, there were many more 18 year olds back then that acted like men than there are today.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
That's a pretty subjective term
reply
2 ups
Well, it's true.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Ripping comments out of context to try to make people look bad...just makes you look worse.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
What did I say that was out of context? He talked about 18-year-olds during WW2 collectively and 18-year-olds today collectively. He made an overgeneralization.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Nowhere did the comment ever specify that ALL 18-year-olds stormed beaches in WW2, or the ALL 18-year-olds today are snivelling wimps. You added the "all" part yourself, for dramatic effect. There's such a thing as the spirit of a thing as opposed to the letter of a thing, which is why many cops won't pull you over for 5mph over the limit; they'd be writing tickets all day, and 5mph over generally isn't hurting anyone. Again, spirit vs letter. Which you deliberately ignored with your comment. Trust me, you were the only person who construed the statement as applying to every single 18-year-old. That would be the same as if I said "men are taller than women" and you accused me of making an overgeneralization. True, not all men are taller than all women. But most are, and a damn lot of 18-year-olds today need to grow a pair of balls.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Looks like someone lost the argument. Not you Barry, you just one upped them all, good job.
reply
2 ups
reply
1 up
He used more out of place caps lock than Octavia did. I guess that makes him much smarter than the libtard.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
He didn't say all 18-year-olds, but he also didn't qualify what he said (some 18-year-olds, a lot of 18-year-olds, etc). When he specifies an entire group without explaining that he is only referring to *some* people within the group, I am justified in assuming he means the group as a whole.

Imagine if someone said "black people are criminals". You know as well as I do how people would interpret that. They would think he's referring to black people as a whole group. If he then said "what I meant was that SOME black people are criminals", people would likely say "then why didn't you say that to being with"?

"Black people are criminals." "Christians are child molesters." "Jews are greedy swindlers." Look at how these all sound, and tell me that most people wouldn't think the speaker is referring to the groups as a whole.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Barry isn't very friendly. Let's go get a drink amongst the normals, Octavia. XD
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
:D
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Barry has 26,000 points and he's been on here for 8 months longer than I have, Octavia. ;P He basically pops in every once in a while to make himself feel superior when he sees his conservative world start to decay, and then f#cks off for another few months...
reply
2 ups
Haha :) his name looked familiar, but I couldn't really remember how his demeanor was.

Alas, work calls, so I won't be able to check my notifications until early tomorrow morning :o
reply
1 up, 3 replies
Whatever blows your skirt up. I'm flattered you took the time to dig into my "past". Must have struck a nerve at some point. Ah, the easily wounded.

It's called having a life. In this case a new family. Obligations that preclude my frequently wasting time on a meme website.

For the record, how exactly is this discussion regarding political views? I was addressing English and incorrect assumptions. Politics didn't enter into it, until you brought them in.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Hello BobParker.
1 up
You called?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
No, Bob for all of his wasting of his Darden degree chasing the clarion call of personality cult, was more intelligent than you. I just couldn't respond to him because the thread ran out. But considering he's been gone for a while give him a kiss from me, and tell him I missed him. Because when all I have to argue with is some droogs with undereducated minds - not that Bob's was sterling - it's a bit of a drag. But still, I hadn't heard from Bob in a couple of years, and suddenly he appears when I'm mocking the lemmings???
0 ups
Ya know, you haven’t proved anything other than that the only thing you’re good at is annoying people. You’ve neglected to address a single point drawn and yet made it a point to let as many people as possible be made aware of your stunning self-importance. Until you actually have anything worthwhile to argue about, such as a point other than “y’all are ignorant lemmings”, I believe I’ll treat you as the waste of space that you are and ignore you.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Heh. So you ARE BobParker. I was just making the obvious connection. How deliciously ironic...
0 ups
Umm, bruh, I'm not BobParker. Which I fully realize there is no way of proving, but...just for the record, I'm not. Now have fun enjoying your supposed cleverness, since apparently you have nothing better to do with your time.

Oh, and for the record: while I can't prove I'm not BobParker, neither can you prove that I am. Cuts both ways. Best not to try to prove that which is impossible to prove.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Time for an English lesson:

Ever heard of syntax (sarcasm there...)? It's kind of a thing. It refers to the arrangement of words and punctuation within sentences and paragraphs to form a certain meaning or meanings.

To break it down, the first part of the original statement was “74 years ago, 18-year-old men were storming beaches...” Now, that statement clearly cannot apply to all 18-year-old men at the time; when Normandy was invaded, there were 18-year-olds defending as well as attacking. 18-year-olds were fighting in the Pacific, Africa, Russia, etc. There is no reason to doubt the speaker's awareness of this fact; very clearly, then, the statement as it was made cannot be accurately construed as having been intended to include all 18-year-old men in 1944.

The first statement must, in these circumstances, set the tone for the second statement. Therefore, if the first part did not address every single 18-year-old man, neither can the latter statement regarding today’s 18-year-old boys be accurately considered as referring to every single 18-year-old male. English, my dear sir. You just flunked.

Nice job, though. Even without your improper understanding of the original statement’s syntax, you completely ignored what was said later about spirit vs letter. And yes, failing to consider the syntax of the statement does in fact constitute ripping a part of the statement out of context. Words only have meaning depending on the circumstances in which they are used. You focused on only a part of the words which were used, thereby failing to consider...CONTEXT.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
HOLY SHIT nice text there
reply
1 up
He's making ad hominem movements. Nice text indeed.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
If the speaker wasn't referring to all 18-year-olds, either today or in 1944, then the entire point he was trying to make falls apart. SOME 18-year-olds in 1944 were storming beaches and SOME 18-year-olds today do not live up to his arbitrary standard of "manliness". So what? Some don't, and some do. What is his point?

I also noticed you failed to counter (or even address) my entire point about someone who says "black people are criminals". When you criticize me for not clearly addressing what someone says, then fail to do so yourself, you look like a hypocrite.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
wtf happened here while i was away...did the leaderboard turn into SJW's??
reply
2 ups
???

No, it didn't. If anything, Imgflip has veered even further to the right.
reply
1 up
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Lmao...the favorite tactic of those without a valid point is to question the validity of the opposition. Okay, amigo.

I applaud you for your determined endeavor to misinterpret the post. Very impressive - your perseverance in your defense of an untenable position is quite amusing.

I already broke down where your argument falls apart. Generalized statements must be interpreted in light of the presumed intent of the speaker. The original statement was "18-year-old men..." It implies neither all nor only a select few; thus, common sense must be used in interpretation. The author of the statement seems to have at least a minor grasp of history, and his punctuation and English are well up to par. Hence, a reasonable level of intelligence is implied by his level of education. In light of which, it is unreasonable to assume the speaker was referring to every single 18-year-old man in 1944; that would be foolish, almost as foolish as you taking away from his statement the assumption that he was referring to every 18-year-old man in 1944 and 2018. Yet you assumed precisely that, and somehow you were the only one who did.

I didn't fail to counter your comment. I ignored it for its sheer stupidity. You were the one who said the original post was wrong because it was either too specific or not specific enough, and buddy, you're among the select few that misinterpreted what was said as being a blanket to cover every single 18-year-old male. So you kinda don't have much credibility left here because you've already demonstrated an inability/refusal to interpret generalizations in their most obvious intention.

Your attitude is called "legalism". Basically, focus on details no one else cares about and bringing them up to make yourself appear to have caught something everyone else missed; i.e., making you look more intelligent than others. What a legalist seldom realizes is that the only thing they're doing is ignoring the forest for the trees, and not fooling anyone in the process.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Me questioning the validity of what the opposing person says is entirely unrelated to whether anything I say has any validity or not.

"Generalized statements must be interpreted in light of the presumed intent of the speaker."

It's the speaker's responsibility to make his intent clear. It's not the reader's job to be telepathic. That's how confusion and misinterpretation happen.

"The original statement was "18-year-old men..." It implies neither all nor only a select few"

How do you know that? If someone refers to a large group of people, you don't automatically know if they have the entire group in mind, or just some of the people in the group.

If you read my original comment, I never assumed he was referring to every single 1944 18-year-old. I will acknowledge that that also implies he wasn't referring to every single 2018 18-year-old. So back to my previous comment: what exactly is his point, then? Some 18-year-olds today are not "manly" and some are. And some 18-year-olds in 1944 were not "manly" and some were. So what?

I'll ask again, since you refused to address my point: if someone said "black people are criminals," how would you interpret the scope of their comment? As referring to some black people? All of them? I would caution against accusing someone else of not having credibility when you won't even address their point.

Legalism is a word I pretty much only hear used by Christians in a theological context. I'm sure it could be used in a secular context, but it seems odd to do so.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
True. However it's a tactic commonly used when all else has failed, and the speaker is desperate. Best to avoid it.

Any speaker may do the best he or she can to make themselves understood. How listeners receive what is said, assuming reasonable clarity on the part of the speaker, is still up to them and not the speaker.

A majority of people, it would seem, had no difficulty understanding the OP's intent with his meme; you, however, chose to focus instead on creating an issue where none had existed. You, my friend, are one of the very few in this thread who seem to be having difficulty with interpretation of what most consider to be clearly phrased English with obvious intent.

If that was the intent of your original comment, you should have said exactly what you meant. You, my dear sir, failed to communicate clearly. Which is amusing, since that is precisely what you accused the OP of.

Hmm. Funny how you comment on my not addressing your point, when you won't comment on what has been said about spirit vs letter. Care to explain your odd taciturnity?

If someone says "black people are criminals," why do you suppose they say that? They know as well as anyone else that not all black people are criminals, and not all criminals are black; very clearly, a degree of bigoted hatred is indicated in their mindset which leads them to make such an obviously false claim.

If someone says "Christians are child molesters"...only someone who hates Christianity would make such a claim. For the same reasons as above.

And as far as the statement "Jews are greedy swindlers", again: there is clearly a large degree of hatred implied.

Do you suppose, then, that the OP intended to say that every last 18-year-old male today is an emotional trainwreck? Because the OP hates all 18-year-old males? Or merely that, in general, adolescents today are overly focused on themselves and their own emotions? Which, do you guess, is more likely to have been the point of the meme?

Legalism is merely adhering excessively to law or formula (direct dictionary quote). It refers to a type of behavior and is not limited to religious topics of discussion, though it may be commonly used therein. It refers to spirit versus letter - a legalist will ignore the spirit with which something is said or done and focus only on disputing the particulars.
1 up
"If someone says "black people are criminals," why do you suppose they say that? They know as well as anyone else that not all black people are criminals, and not all criminals are black; very clearly, a degree of bigoted hatred is indicated in their mindset which leads them to make such an obviously false claim."

There actually are people who do believe that all black people are criminals. Is their belief based on hatred and bigotry? Yes. But they still believe it, regardless of how absurdly false it is.

As for what you said about letter vs spirit, yes, I see your point.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Would you say that his words have hurt you? Because that's what it sounds like.
reply
1 up
No, his words didn't hurt me, but if someone says something that I feel is incorrect or silly, I will try to correct it.
Flip Settings

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
74 YEARS AGO, 18 YEAR OLD MEN WERE STORMING BEACHES UNDER HEAVY MACHINE GUN FIRE... TODAY, 18 YEAR OLD BOYS ARE LIKE, "YOUR WORDS HURT ME..."
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back
Feedback