[ebuddy]

I understand OAWs distaste for rhetoric that, regardless of intent, incites a lower kind. I really do. In many cases, it's sloppy speak which sheds a negative light on the figure on a host of levels.

My problem is that the issue occurs in "circles" the complainant often ignores. I don't like unidirectional indictments like these that become little more than partisan zingers. Abuse of the indictment does all of the same things IMO as the sloppy or mal-intentioned dig. It marginalizes the impact of an obviously very terrible time in US history and perpetuates resentment.

Criticisms of our President and at times very critical reviews of his performance should not be construed as "bashing" anyone. O'Reilly was throwing a bit of good advice to the folks participating in CPAC, but I don't know that it was necessary. It was no bash-fest.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Osedax,
Let's wrap this up shall we? Because we can go around like this all day.

How about we'll wrap this up when you recant your unsupported, assumptive allegations?

Sure, you say it's not "blatant", but so far you argument has very much revolved around how "arrogant" is a "synonym" for "uppity" as the basis of your statement. Everything else is just outside "context".

Well apparently you think that because you see what you want to see.

What I see is what you've said and you've said there was racist intent. You've said the basis for it being of racist intent is that "arrogant" is a synonym for "uppity". Absolutely everything else you've said is outside "context".

So don't try to say I'm reading it wrong - it's all right there in your posts, clear as day.

The context factors into the argument. It's not some separate and distinct thing that has no relevance to what I'm saying. You want to dismiss the context? Fine. Knock yourself out.

Oh great, so now you are falsely claiming I said we should dismiss context when I never said any such thing. So either you've just forgot what I said in my previous post, which you quoted, or you are simply being very deceitful and trying to portray my argument as one of extremes when it is clearly not.

Let me clarify for you again by quoting what I said last time and hoping you'll "get it" this time so we don't get any more deceitful suggestions that I "dismiss the context":
There is a difference between understanding and considering the context and making a conclusion based solely on the context.

I know very well what the context is but I am not going to come to a conclusion based exclusively on that context because I recognize there are far to many unanswered and unanswerable questions.

You on the other hand consider nothing but the context - you read "uppity" in to "arrogant" and you actively look for hate.

Again, I do not "dismiss the context", I simply realize assertions can not be based on context alone, which is exactly what you have done. So yeah, stop being deceitful.

Let's keep in mind that this is one of those "forward" emails that is being sent within certain "circles". And as we all know, the origins of such emails are typically a mystery. It may not even be a single author. Could have been some PAC opposed to Obama. Or perhaps some staunch conservative who just can't stand to see a Democrat in the White House. Could be anybody. Who knows? More on this later ....

"Who knows" is exactly right - you have no clue at all. All you have is assumption.

The point that's not registering with you is that it's not as simple as "arrogant" is a synonym for "uppity" therefore any use of the former in reference to Obama is racist. The only one saying that is you! And turtle777 I suppose. In no shape, form, or fashion have I stated an across the board position like that.

You're right in that you have not stated an across the board position on "arrogant" and I never said you did - I simply extrapolated out the conclusion that your type of 'everything's hate speech thinking' leads to.

The point of my statement is this:
That letter has no hate speech in it at all. So based on "context" alone, you concluded that "arrogant" means "uppity". My point is if we use thinking like that, then any use of the word "arrogant" or any other synonym of "arrogant" can be used to draw the exact same conclusion.

the issue here is about what, if any, connotation may be intended by the use of the term "arrogant" in this particular context. Now just so we are clear ...

connotation: an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning

Nothing in that letter invoked racism. It absolutely does invoke that the author does not care for the current President, there's no question of that, but nothing suggests racism in that dislike. You are creating that racism connotation based on "context" which itself is based on bad assumptions.

You can't do that. Just because it's negative toward the President doesn't mean you can start applying racist connotations to what was said.

And recall what I initially said ...

So my position is that the relative likelihood of the term "arrogant" being intended to have a connotation of "uppity" is significantly higher IMO when the audience is comprised of those for whom the shoe fits.

And this is more of what I'm talking about that you can't do... You're trying to turn even more words into "buzzwords for racism". Those words "feed right into the mindset" of anyone that strongly disagrees with Obama and thinks he is doing everything wrong, that doesn't mean their all racists.

People can despise and hate the President and think he is an elitist, annoying, arrogant jerk all without being racist about it. You just need look at how so many on the left treated Bush for examples.

So my position is that the relative likelihood of the term "arrogant" being intended to have a connotation of "uppity" is significantly higher IMO when the audience is comprised of those for whom the shoe fits. And it's not a stretch to think that the shoe fits when said "circles" are filled with comments like these:

ALL of the examples you gave have clear racists / prejudice connotations that are not in that letter.

You can hate a minority person without being racist and just because you do does not make you racist unless you hate them based on their race.

And again, like I said earlier this sort of rhetoric is easy to find and remarkably commonplace in such "circles". I mean in this particular forum alone we have the following obvious racial stereotypes:

I'm sure it's common in many circles to be mad at the President and consider him elitist and arrogant etc. You can't take the worst of those circles and conclude that's the target audience and intent.

Racist people drink Coca-Cola, but that doesn't mean that because Coca-Cola makes the rounds at racist gatherings that Coca-Cola is a racist company or product.

If Coca-Cola stated that it was specially formulated for racist gatherings, then you could draw the conclusions you're trying to draw. But Coca-Cola and this letter don't do that. In other words, being embraced by the wrong kind of people doesn't mean they agree with those people.

So it's not at all unreasonable ... certainly not a stretch ... to conclude that those who express such sentiments quite openly also view Obama as "uppity".

The people on those particular forums no doubt do consider Obama "uppity" and they are no doubt racist garbage. But it is a HUGE stretch to assume that letter was designed for those forums. You do not know.

So context matters. The bottom line is that I'm not forming an opinion based upon context alone as you claimed. It's based upon the statement itself in conjunction with the context.

Right, wrong and wrong.
Context does matter, you got that much right.

But you are wrong - you absolutely are forming your opinion based on context alone - you are taking the context of a select group of the people that read it and from that hand picked context, assuming the letter was made to cater specifically do that group.

And your last sentence is so wrong it contradicts itself...
How can something be based upon the statement itself AND in conjunction with the context? Your opinion is either based upon the statement itself or the statement in conjunction with context, it can't be based on both.

Again, it appears that you see what you want to see.

You see nothing at all because you are blinded by your predispositions.

Now apparently it's at this point where you ASSUME that my opinion about the author's intent ... which I never revealed ... was that it was "racist" simply because I said I wasn't going to try to prove that to be the case.

lol?

Just because you're not going to try to prove something you know you can't prove doesn't mean you don't believe it, it just means you know you can't prove it.

However, the next statements from you makes it crystal clear that while you can't / won't try to prove it, you believe it:

So I certainly won't waste a lot of energy trying to "prove" that the author's intent was racist. I have my personal opinion ... but that's neither here nor there.

There's no other logical reason you would say those things together, it wouldn't make sense at all to mean anything else. So now you're playing deceitful word games to try to wriggle out of your own statements ... great.

The rest of your blah blah blah is just you trying to duck / dodge / justify your own statements and are really irrelevant.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I understand OAWs distaste for rhetoric that, regardless of intent, incites a lower kind. I really do. In many cases, it's sloppy speak which sheds a negative light on the figure on a host of levels.

My problem is that the issue occurs in "circles" the complainant often ignores. I don't like unidirectional indictments like these that become little more than partisan zingers. Abuse of the indictment does all of the same things IMO as the sloppy or mal-intentioned dig. It marginalizes the impact of an obviously very terrible time in US history and perpetuates resentment.

Agreed, this is exactly my point.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

All I can say is, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, well, it's probably...

That letter didn't look, walk or quack like a racist duck.

It looked, walked and quacked like a duck that doesn't like the President, but it was completely void of racism.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

Just because you're not going to try to prove something you know you can't prove doesn't mean you don't believe it, it just means you know you can't prove it.

However, the next statements from you makes it crystal clear that while you can't / won't try to prove it, you believe it:

So I certainly won't waste a lot of energy trying to "prove" that the author's intent was racist. I have my personal opinion ... but that's neither here nor there.

There's no other logical reason you would say those things together, it wouldn't make sense at all to mean anything else. So now you're playing deceitful word games to try to wriggle out of your own statements ... great.

Sure there is a logical reason. The motivation of the author wasn't my primary point. Again, the hypocrisy of those having a hissy fit over something so petty was the focus.

Originally Posted by Osedax 

The rest of your blah blah blah is just you trying to duck / dodge / justify your own statements and are really irrelevant.

So it's irrelevant simply because you say so? Uh huh. Yeah.

The rest of my post is where I revealed for the first time what I actually thought the intent of the author was. And it clearly showed that your repeated attempts to try to claim that I thought the author's intent was racist were just .... wrong. The fact that you chose not to address those comments in any way is quite noteworthy. On the one hand, I suppose it's a good thing that you had sense enough to realize that my personal opinion about the author's intent was in no way contradicted by my previous posts. So you didn't even try to challenge my statement. But on the other hand, you've constructed this narrative in your head and convinced yourself that you know my thinking better than I do. To acknowledge my actual opinion regarding the author's intent would induce a certain "cognitive dissonance" for you since you seem stuck on viewing everything I've posted previously through that erroneous prism. But hey I understand. It's much easier to just dismiss it out of hand and keep it moving ... since it appears that a simple "My bad ... I didn't consider that." would be too much like right for you.

OAW

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Sure there is a logical reason. The motivation of the author wasn't my primary point.

I said there is "no other" logical reason, not that there is no logical reason......

I am not disagreeing that the motivation of the author wasn't your primary point......

My point is, there is no logical reason you would say "I have my personal opinion" where you specifically said it, after your statement that you won't try to "prove" that the author is racist, unless it was your personal opinion that the author's intent was racist.

That phrase, "I have my personal opinion", coming immediately after what you just said, draws only one logical conclusion - it is your personal opinion that the author's intent was racist. There is no other logical way to explain that phrase at that location in that statement.

Again, the hypocrisy of those having a hissy fit over something so petty was the focus.

That was the focus for you. My focus was that you were saying the intent of this letter was racist without any facts or content to support you - only context and assumption.

So it's irrelevant simply because you say so? Uh huh. Yeah.

If it's irrelevant to me I'll say it's irrelevant and ignore it if I so chose. So yeah, because I say so.

The rest of my post is where I revealed for the first time what I actually thought the intent of the author was.

No, you revealed that in your very first post when you made it crystal clear that it was your opinion that the author's intent was racist. Everything after that was a re-write and an attempt to justify that rewrite by mincing or ignoring words, which is why I consider it irrelevant.

If you've now changed your stance, good for you. But the personal opinion you expressed in that first post is crystal clear.

The fact that you chose not to address those comments in any way is quite noteworthy.

Not addressing your attempts to butcher and alter your previous statements isn't really noteworthy in any significant way beyond showing that you can and are being deceitful, much like your deceitful attempt to claim that I dismiss context.

But on the other hand, you've constructed this narrative in your head and convinced yourself that you know my thinking better than I do.

What's constructed in my head was built by you - I am only going by what you've said.

Almost your entire first post was an explanation of your opinion on how the letter implies racism, "code words", "plausible deniability", "elitist" and all.

You say you can't prove the intent was racist, but you have your personal opinion, which can only mean one logical conclusion - your personal opinion is that the intent was racist.

Almost all of your second post was justification for your opinion that the letter implies racism, including how you "connect the dots" to show how the letter is suggestive of racism.

So yeah, this narrative was constructed by you - just somewhere along the way you decided you didn't like what you said so now you're trying to re-write it and deceitfully claim I didn't understand blah blah blah...

It's much easier to just dismiss it out of hand and keep it moving

It's easy to dismiss obvious deceit and you're obvious.

... since it appears that a simple "My bad ... I didn't consider that." would be too much like right for you.

If you're going to change your personal opinion, no problem. We can all change our minds about things. But don't sit there and claim I'm miss-reading what you very clearly said and try to make it out like I'm confused when your words are as clear as day... That, again, is being deceitful.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

I said there is "no other" logical reason, not that there is no logical reason......

I am not disagreeing that the motivation of the author wasn't your primary point......

My point is, there is no logical reason you would say "I have my personal opinion" where you specifically said it, after your statement that you won't try to "prove" that the author is racist, unless it was your personal opinion that the author's intent was racist.

That phrase, "I have my personal opinion", coming immediately after what you just said, draws only one logical conclusion - it is your personal opinion that the author's intent was racist. There is no other logical way to explain that phrase at that location in that statement.

Well then I suggest you brush up on your logic skills. That phrase coming immediately after what I had just said meant only that I wasn't inclined to get into that topic. That fact that you latched onto your erroneous interpretation of what I meant does not preclude other, equally valid, interpretations. I suppose on the planet you live on it is somehow "illogical" to state that you won't try to "prove" a point that many assume to be the case because your personal opinion is that it is not. Especially when you are focused on another point entirely.

Originally Posted by Osedax

If it's irrelevant to me I'll say it's irrelevant and ignore it if I so chose. So yeah, because I say so.

No it's irrelevant to you and you choose to ignore it because it shuts your entire argument down. Quite obviously. But tell yourself whatever you want to tell yourself.

Originally Posted by Osedax

Not addressing your attempts to butcher and alter your previous statements isn't really noteworthy in any significant way beyond showing that you can and are being deceitful, much like your deceitful attempt to claim that I dismiss context.

I see you've gone from "because I said so" all the way to simply making things up. Do you see a Last Edited Date for any of my previous posts with a date AFTER the Post Date? So exactly where did I "butcher" or "alter" my previous statements? The fact of the matter is that I haven't. Do trust and believe that nothing has changed on that front. Furthermore, when you can demonstrate where my recently revealed opinion of the author's motivation is in anyway contradictory to my previous posts ... then you might have some semblance of a point. And for the record, such a demonstration will require a bit more backup than "because I said so." And since thus far you are sorely lacking in that department when it comes to this particular point, you'll have to excuse me if I don't hold my breath ....

Originally Posted by Osedax

Almost all of your second post was justification for your opinion that the letter implies racism, including how you "connect the dots" to show how the letter is suggestive of racism.

And? And? You say that as if that's supposed to trip me up or prove your case. Forget about my "second post". I'll do you one better. The first thing I said in my first post was that I thought race was implied. I went on to say that the use of the term "arrogant" was likely intended to have a connotation of "uppity" within the "circles" that the email was causing such a ruckus. It is certainly true that I said all of that. I'm not backing away from any of that. The problem is that you INCORRECTLY EQUATE a "racial aspect being involved" with "racist intent" on the part of the author! Allow me to break out the stick figures for you ....

Originally Posted by OAW

Imagine if the origin of the email was an Obama supporter who sent it anonymously into said "circles" ... knowing how it would be perceived and take off like wild fire ... in a (successful) attempt to make them look silly.

Racial aspect is involved = "knowing how it would be perceived". Because the fact of the matter is that in certain "circles" the use of the term "arrogant" in reference to African-Americans IS suggestive of "uppity".

Author's intent = "in a (successful) attempt to make them look silly."

There is NOTHING that logically necessitates the author's intent to be "racist" simply because there is a "racial aspect involved" ... namely that the email was "suggestive of racism" to a particular crowd.

Originally Posted by Osedax

If you're going to change your personal opinion, no problem. We can all change our minds about things. But don't sit there and claim I'm miss-reading what you very clearly said and try to make it out like I'm confused when your words are as clear as day... That, again, is being deceitful.

I never claimed anything of the sort. How can I claim that you misread a personal opinion that I didn't even reveal until 3 posts ago? Seriously dude. Do you even bother to actually read your comments before you post them to make sure that they make some kind of sense?

Let's be clear here. What you did was make an ASSUMPTION about what you thought my personal opinion was regarding the author's intent from the very beginning. Or perhaps I should say you made an inference. Your inference was valid ... it just isn't sound. The reason why it is not sound is because your fundamental premise is flawed:

Originally Posted by Osedax

My point is, there is no logical reason you would say "I have my personal opinion" where you specifically said it, after your statement that you won't try to "prove" that the author is racist, unless it was your personal opinion that the author's intent was racist.

I've already dealt with this above so I won't rehash it. Suffice it to say that this is simply NOT TRUE. And if your premise is not true then any inference (conclusion) you draw from that flawed premise might be valid ... but it certainly isn't sound.

Now when I revealed what my opinion actually was, instead of just taking a step back and recognizing that you had simply made an erroneous assumption ... for some strange and unknown reason you decided to dig your hole even deeper. Perhaps you are the type that won't let little things like facts get in the way of your opinion? Or perhaps you truly do believe your own BS? In any event, if you want to continue trying to pass off your ASSUMPTIONS as LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS then hey ... be my guest.

OAW

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

That letter didn't look, walk or quack like a racist duck.

It looked, walked and quacked like a duck that doesn't like the President, but it was completely void of racism.

You're entitled to your opinion, and I mine.

There's plenty of evidence available that the presidential behavior in question is pretty typical, yet the author chose to use it to call out Obama anyway. What's different in this case? The author didn't specify what he doesn't like, so I'm left to draw my own conclusions (as are you). Quack Quack.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well then I suggest you brush up on your logic skills. That phrase coming immediately after what I had just said meant only that I wasn't inclined to get into that topic.

Aaaaagain, the phrase "I have my personal opinion", coming immediately after your statement about trying to "prove" the author's intent draws only one logical conclusion - it is your personal opinion that the author's intent was racist.

There is no other logical way to explain that phrase at that location in that statement and the reason there is no other logical way to explain that phrase is a wonderful little word called "context". And by the way, I find it highly amusing that you're so quick to jump to the conclusion that the letter is racist based on context alone, but seem completely oblivious to the context of your own statements.

When you write an entire paragraph on how the article suggests racism then say you can't prove the racist intent, but you have your personal opinion, the context you created makes it perfectly clear what that opinion is. By saying "I have my personal opinion" after saying all of the previous, you are telling the reader that you believe the intent was racist, you just can't or won't "prove" it. The use of quotes for the word "prove" emphasizes that point.

As I said, the personal opinion you expressed in that first post is crystal clear.

I'll throw you a bone:
Either it was your personal opinion that the intent was racist and you're now playing stupid word games.

Or you're so bad at understanding the English language that you really have no idea how these statements could relate to each other.

You pick.

That fact that you latched onto your erroneous interpretation of what I meant does not preclude other, equally valid, interpretations. I suppose on the planet you live on it is somehow "illogical" to state that you won't try to "prove" a point that many assume to be the case because your personal opinion is that it is not. Especially when you are focused on another point entirely.

So, you point out how it implies racism, suggest the author's intent was racist, then say it's not your opinion the intent was racist? Suuuure.

No it's irrelevant to you and you choose to ignore it because it shuts your entire argument down. Quite obviously. But tell yourself whatever you want to tell yourself.

Lies do not shut my argument down, they simply makes discussion pointless.

Do you see a Last Edited Date for any of my previous posts with a date AFTER the Post Date? So exactly where did I "butcher" or "alter" my previous statements? The fact of the matter is that I haven't. Do trust and believe that nothing has changed on that front.

You butcher and alter your statements by pulling out portions of the text instead of considering the entire post. I thought that was obvious enough.

Example:

The problem is that you INCORRECTLY EQUATE a "racial aspect being involved" with "racist intent" on the part of the author!

The only reason I equate them is because you tied them together by using both statements in the same post talking about the same topic... So yeah...

I love that you're trying to take those two statements from the same post, about the same subject and split them out like that. And you say you don't butcher your own statements?

Furthermore, when you can demonstrate where my recently revealed opinion of the author's motivation is in anyway contradictory to my previous posts ... then you might have some semblance of a point.

I don't care what your new "recently revealed opinion" is - your original opinion was revealed in your very first post and that's what I'm talking about.

There is NOTHING that logically necessitates the author's intent to be "racist" simply because there is a "racial aspect involved" ... namely that the email was "suggestive of racism" to a particular crowd.

When you separate them, split them out, each on their own, divide them into two separate thoughts, you're right, there is nothing that ties them together. But you have to butcher them apart and completely ignore the fact that those statements were made together, in the same post, about the same subject, to make that claim. Butcher.

I never claimed anything of the sort. How can I claim that you misread a personal opinion that I didn't even reveal until 3 posts ago? Seriously dude. Do you even bother to actually read your comments before you post them to make sure that they make some kind of sense?

Seriously dude, do you bother to read what you write as one statement? Or. Is. Every. Word. An. Independent. Idea. With. No. Relation. To. Any. Other. Words?

Let's be clear here. What you did was make an ASSUMPTION about what you thought my personal opinion was regarding the author's intent from the very beginning.

I kinda figured I was dealing with a big hissy fit, I was just waiting for the "why", and now we have it - poor OAW got his little feelings hurt over being called out for making terrible assumptions.

Now when I revealed what my opinion actually was, instead of just taking a step back and recognizing that you had simply made an erroneous assumption ...

I don't believe you've been honest at all. I believe being called on your bad assumptions got your panties in a bunch so you've been playing word games in a rather asinine attempt to "get me". But THAT is just my opinion.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

You're entitled to your opinion, and I mine.

You are. And if you're going to express that opinion, I'm entitled to question it. Seems fair, right?

There's plenty of evidence available that the presidential behavior in question is pretty typical, yet the author chose to use it to call out Obama anyway. What's different in this case?

I don't know that 2 photos is "plenty of evidence", but whatever, we can ignore that, right?

As for the difference - Bush isn't a Democrat and Obama isn't a Republican and that seems like a pretty big difference if you ask me. In fact, it's a difference that tends to cause a lot of consternation for a lot of people, don't ya think?

The author didn't specify what he doesn't like, so I'm left to draw my own conclusions (as are you).

You're right, the author didn't specify what he dislikes about the President. So why do you jump to the conclusion it was racist?

Quack Quack.

Again, it looked, walked and quacked like a duck that doesn't like the President, but it was completely void of racism. So why are you adding it in? Is it shameful to admit why you consider it racist?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

As for the difference - Bush isn't a Democrat and Obama isn't a Republican and that seems like a pretty big difference if you ask me. In fact, it's a difference that tends to cause a lot of consternation for a lot of people, don't ya think?

Possible. But I don't see people talking about Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi like they don't 'deserve' their positions. Or Clinton or Carter, for that matter. The level of hate seems amped up to me.

You're right, the author didn't specify what he dislikes about the President. So why do you jump to the conclusion it was racist?

What's different about the assumptions I make and the conclusions I jump to compared to yours? Why do you jump to the conclusion that you do?

I call 'em like I see 'em.

Again, it looked, walked and quacked like a duck that doesn't like the President, but it was completely void of racism. So why are you adding it in? Is it shameful to admit why you consider it racist?

It also looked, walked, and quacked like a racist duck. You see, a duck doesn't stand up and say 'I'm a duck'. We conclude he's a duck because of the way he looks, walks, and quacks.

So - Obama is 'disrespectful' when he behaves a certain way, and others are not called 'disrespectful'. Why should Obama have to show more 'respect' than Bush? Quack Quack.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Possible. But I don't see people talking about Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi like they don't 'deserve' their positions. Or Clinton or Carter, for that matter.

The letter does not say Obama doesn't "deserve" his position, it only says electing him was a mistake, which many people have felt about everyone you listed and, frankly, every elected official.

The level of hate seems amped up to me.

When is the last time a President tried to so massively increase national spending with something like the Health Care bill? The New Deal? That was a pretty long time ago...

In my opinion, big spending brings big animosity.

What's different about the assumptions I make and the conclusions I jump to compared to yours? Why do you jump to the conclusion that you do?

I am not jumping to any conclusions. I don't know if the intent was racist or not - I am not making a decision either way. As OAW pointed out, there is context, but in the letter itself, there is nothing that suggests racism directly and even indirect implication is a stretch.

I call 'em like I see 'em.

Well that's what i'm asking. How do you see 'em that you would call 'em racist? Cause I don't see it.

It also looked, walked, and quacked like a racist duck. You see, a duck doesn't stand up and say 'I'm a duck'. We conclude he's a duck because of the way he looks, walks, and quacks.

Sure, I know. But this duck looks like a goose - the author obviously doesn't care for the President, but millions of people don't care for the President and that doesn't make them racist ducks. This person expressed his anger via ranting about feet on the desk, hardly hard core racist stuff.....

So - Obama is 'disrespectful' when he behaves a certain way, and others are not called 'disrespectful'. Why should Obama have to show more 'respect' than Bush? Quack Quack.

Maybe it's because the author is a Republican and mad about the changes Obama is trying to pass into law? You can't just jump to "racist" without any real reason.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

When is the last time a President tried to so massively increase national spending with something like the Health Care bill? The New Deal? That was a pretty long time ago...

Iraq war? Medicare Part D? Where's the hate on those?

I am not jumping to any conclusions. I don't know if the intent was racist or not - I am not making a decision either way. As OAW pointed out, there is context, but in the letter itself, there is nothing that suggests racism directly and even indirect implication is a stretch.

I don't know either. But I see the behaviors of a duck.

Well that's what i'm asking. How do you see 'em that you would call 'em racist? Cause I don't see it.

Already answered. Obama's behavior is called 'disrespectful', and he's called out for his 'attitude', while others are not called out at all for the same behavior. Who is Obama 'disrespecting' that others are not? WTF?

Sure, I know. But this duck looks like a goose - the author obviously doesn't care for the President, but millions of people don't care for the President and that doesn't make them racist ducks. This person expressed his anger via ranting about feet on the desk, hardly hard core racist stuff.....

Who said it has to be 'hard core' to smell duck meat?

Maybe it's because the author is a Republican and mad about the changes Obama is trying to pass into law? You can't just jump to "racist" without any real reason.

I can jump to 'racist' without any 'real reason' the same way you jump to 'Republican' without any real reason. Is it possible I'm wrong? Sure. But I smell duck.

IMO, the letter is written in the way a racist would write it when trying to veil the racism. You know - looks, walks, quacks like a duck. That's reason enough for me. If it's not for you, fine - feel free to come to a different conclusion.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

Aaaaagain, the phrase "I have my personal opinion", coming immediately after your statement about trying to "prove" the author's intent draws only one logical conclusion - it is your personal opinion that the author's intent was racist.

There is no other logical way to explain that phrase at that location in that statement and the reason there is no other logical way to explain that phrase is a wonderful little word called "context". And by the way, I find it highly amusing that you're so quick to jump to the conclusion that the letter is racist based on context alone, but seem completely oblivious to the context of your own statements.

I just gave you a clear cut and logical reason why. The thing is ... you don't refute it. You don't demonstrate how the reason I gave is illogical. You don't even try. All you do is simply repeat your false assertion as if saying it over and over again will magically make it true.

Originally Posted by Osedax

I don't care what your new "recently revealed opinion" is - your original opinion was revealed in your very first post and that's what I'm talking about.

You don't care about what my actual opinion was because it runs contrary to all your BS. So you focus on what you say ... in error .... was my original opinion. A tad bit convenient ... n'est-ce pas?

Originally Posted by Osedax

Lies do not shut my argument down, they simply makes discussion pointless.

....

I don't believe you've been honest at all. I believe being called on your bad assumptions got your panties in a bunch so you've been playing word games in a rather asinine attempt to "get me". But THAT is just my opinion.

Given your "Fresh Faced Recruit" status let's assume that you are relatively new around here. So I'll just write that foolishness off to your being unfamiliar with me in this forum. Because anyone who is familiar with me knows that I don't get my "panties in a bunch" because someone takes an opposing view and challenges me ... especially when it comes to these types of issues. There are those who do that frequently around here and I more than hold my own. But I suppose you think you are special or something so all of a sudden I have to "lie" to deal with you huh? As if being on the "unpopular" or "controversial" side of a racially sensitive debate is somehow uncomfortable for me. Oh wow! Now that's pure comedy right there!!

In any event, it seems that we have gotten to the crux of the matter. You are entitled to your opinion regarding my "honesty". That's fine ... because if we are going to go there, for all we know you may secretly agree with me but are just playing "devil's advocate". Who knows? One thing is for certain though. If one is going to engage in an intelligent, logical debate, then the only thing we can go by in a forum such as this are the posts as they are written. Dismissing certain posts as a "lie" and refusing to address them is very much indicative of an intellectual lightweight who simply can't hang on that level. And if you want to go out like that .... so be it.

I'll simply conclude with this as it bears repeating ....

Originally Posted by OAW

Furthermore, when you can demonstrate where my recently revealed opinion of the author's motivation is in anyway contradictory to my previous posts ... then you might have some semblance of a point.

Until you can manage to do that you haven't "called me" on anything. Because if said post was a "lie" ... if it was "dishonest" ... then you should be able to show how it conflicts with what I previously said. You see ... that's what actually backing up your claim entails. Short of that, you are simply talking sh*t ... and we really don't have anything else to discuss on this topic.

OAW

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I just gave you a clear cut and logical reason why.

No you didn't, you gave me garbage excuses.

Since you seem to have forgotten, this is what you said:

But again, the "plausible deniability" factor is there. So I certainly won't waste a lot of energy trying to "prove" that the author's intent was racist. I have my personal opinion ...

It does not make any sense whatsoever for the "personal opinion" statement to mean "only that [you weren't] inclined to get into that topic".

Are you really trying to say this is what you meant:
I certainly won't waste a lot of energy trying to "prove" that the author's intent was racist. I have my personal opinion that I wasn't inclined to get into that topic.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA no.

That doesn't make sense at all. The only thing that makes sense is you playing stupid word games trying to change your intent as you try to get out of the corner you've backed yourself into.

If you feel theres a better place to interject that "clarification" into your original statement, I'd love to see how you do it - and don't try to butcher it down or completely alter it.

The thing is ... you don't refute it. You don't demonstrate how the reason I gave is illogical. You don't even try. All you do is simply repeat your false assertion as if saying it over and over again will magically make it true.

I repeated it because your response was convoluted garbage that makes no sense, as I've shown above.

And so again, for the third time, the phrase "I have my personal opinion", coming immediately after your statement about trying to "prove" the author's intent draws only one logical conclusion - it is your personal opinion that the author's intent was racist.

You don't care about what my actual opinion was because it runs contrary to all your BS. So you focus on what you say ...

No, I don't care about your new opinion because it runs contrary to what you actually said.

Given your "Fresh Faced Recruit" status let's assume that you are relatively new around here. So I'll just write that foolishness off to your being unfamiliar with me in this forum.

The foolishness is you somehow thinking you can "pull rank" just because you've posted to these forums more then I have.

Honesty is the only real measure of rank - I'd rather deal with an honest person that posts 1 time over a deceitful person that posts all day every day.

Because anyone who is familiar with me knows that I don't get my "panties in a bunch" because someone takes an opposing view and challenges me ... especially when it comes to these types of issues. There are those who do that frequently around here and I more than hold my own.

You "hold your own" by playing word games, using insults and getting all righteous, not by sticking to the truth and having honest debate.

But I suppose you think you are special or something so all of a sudden I have to "lie" to deal with you huh?

I'm not special. I just call BS when I see it and I'm calling you.

As if being on the "unpopular" or "controversial" side of a racially sensitive debate is somehow uncomfortable for me. Oh wow! Now that's pure comedy right there!!

I'm pretty positive you're ongoing rant has nothing to do with the original topic - this is just a "game" you're trying to "win" by lying, deceiving, bullying and insulting. Shrug.

The problem is, you "lost" when you started lying and now you're trying to dig out of the hole you dug ... by digging more.

And a good example of the insult and righteous indignation:

One thing is for certain though. If one is going to engage in an intelligent, logical debate, then the only thing we can go by in a forum such as this are the posts as they are written. Dismissing certain posts as a "lie" and refusing to address them is very much indicative of an intellectual lightweight who simply can't hang on that level. And if you want to go out like that .... so be it.

I may very well be an intellectual lightweight who simply can't hang on that level, but I sure beat the pants off of you. So what's that make you?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Osedax

I may very well be an intellectual lightweight who simply can't hang on that level, but I sure beat the pants off of you. So what's that make you?

It makes me someone who has to strongly advise you to lay off the drugs!

Originally Posted by Osedax 

Are you really trying to say this is what you meant:
I certainly won't waste a lot of energy trying to "prove" that the author's intent was racist. I have my personal opinion THAT I WASN'T inclined to get into that topic.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA no.

That doesn't make sense at all. The only thing that makes sense is you playing stupid word games trying to change your intent as you try to get out of the corner you've backed yourself into.

If you feel theres a better place to interject that "clarification" into your original statement, I'd love to see how you do it - and don't try to butcher it down or completely alter it.

So the best you can do is rephrase what I said in a nonsensical manner (e.g. the part I capitalized above) and think that you've made a point? Now I seriously doubt that you were born this dense. So what's the problem here? Did you fall and bump your head?

Do yourself a favor and pay attention now ok? What I said was this ....

Originally Posted by OAW

So I certainly won't waste a lot of energy trying to "prove" that the author's intent was racist. I have my personal opinion ... but that's neither here nor there.

"Neither here nor there" is an idiom that essentially means "not important, or having no significance or influence on the question at hand."

Well why is "that" (i.e. my personal opinion regarding the author's intent) not important you might ask? It wasn't important because as I've stated previously my focus was on the blatant hypocrisy of the situation. As evidenced by the way I ended my original post. Now let's take your feeble attempt to rephrase or "clarify" what I said (i.e. the only example of "butchering" that we've seen thus far) and do it in a manner that actually makes sense .....

I certainly won't waste a lot of energy trying to "prove" that the author's intent was racist. I have my personal opinion ... BUT I'M NOT inclined to get into that topic.

Well why are you not inclined to get into that topic you might ask? Because it's "neither here nor there" ... like I said from the beginning. And why is it "neither here nor there" you might ask? See above!

Even Stevie Wonder can see that "BUT I'M NOT inclined to get into that topic" is clearly more analogous to "but that's neither here nor there" than "THAT I WASN'T inclined to get into that topic"! Is this simply beyond your reading comprehension level?

:::::: begin Chris Tucker voice ::::::

Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?

::::::: end Chris Tucker voice ::::::::

You claimed that what I said "makes no sense". For that to have any merit the burden is on you to demonstrate how what I just said conflicts with or contradicts my original post. You just tried ... and I'll give you an "E" for effort ... but clearly that was a massive FAIL. Feel free to try again.

OAW

[OAW]

In conjunction with my post immediately above, I'll once again try to end this because there are only so many ways to explain the obvious. As you'll recall, eventually I finally did state what my opinion was regarding the author's intent:

Originally Posted by OAW

Imagine if the origin of the email was an Obama supporter who sent it anonymously into said "circles" ... knowing how it would be perceived and take off like wild fire ... in a (successful) attempt to make them look silly.

So while you are at it please explain how this conflicts with or contradicts my original statement. Again, "neither here nor there" means that it's "not important". It simply means that the "author's intent" ... regardless of what it was ... is not germane or pertinent to the discussion at hand for me because my focus was on the "blatant hypocrisy" of the situation. Allow me to simplify this even further for you cause Lord knows you need it.

A. "So I certainly won't waste a lot of energy trying to "prove" that the author's intent was racist. I have my personal opinion (THAT IT IS) ... but that's neither here nor there."

B. "So I certainly won't waste a lot of energy trying to "prove" that the author's intent was racist. I have my personal opinion (THAT IT'S NOT) ... but that's neither here nor there."

I inserted the capitalized parts not to "rephrase" the statement, but just to reflect our two respective positions on what I was saying. So it's just the one, original statement. A is what you (erroneously) claim I was saying. B is what I (later) said was the case. You claimed I was being "dishonest" and "lying" because in your view A was the only "logical explanation". The million dollar question I have for you is .... exactly how is your interpretation the only "logical explanation" given the meaning of the phrase "but that's neither here nor there"? Hmmmmm?

Then again .... you can always just stop digging.

OAW

[Osedax]

I'm going to make this as short and simple as possible for you so that you don't get lost and confused yet again.

Originally Posted by OAW 

So the best you can do is rephrase what I said in a nonsensical manner (e.g. the part I capitalized above) and think that you've made a point?

Let's take a look at what you said.

You said:
But again, the "plausible deniability" factor is there. So I certainly won't waste a lot of energy trying to "prove" that the author's intent was racist. I have my personal opinion ... but that's neither here nor there.

I said:
My point is, there is no logical reason you would say "I have my personal opinion" where you specifically said it, after your statement that you won't try to "prove" that the author is racist, unless it was your personal opinion that the author's intent was racist.

That phrase, "I have my personal opinion", coming immediately after what you just said, draws only one logical conclusion - it is your personal opinion that the author's intent was racist. There is no other logical way to explain that phrase at that location in that statement.

Your direct response to me was this:
That phrase coming immediately after what I had just said meant only that I wasn't inclined to get into that topic.

Here's the post.
http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...2/#post3942496

I put those two statements by you together as best I could and you're right, it didn't make sense, but that's because your explanation of what you had said was idiotic and nonsensical.

So all I want from you is for you to explain how "I have my personal opinion" "meant only that [you weren't] inclined to get into that topic".

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Osedax

So all I want from you is for you to explain how "I have my personal opinion" "meant only that [you weren't] inclined to get into that topic".

The answer to your question is "The rest of the freaking sentence!"

That is, the "... but that's neither here nor there." part that you seem to conveniently and consistently leave out. See my previous two posts above. 95% of which you chose to ignore and utterly failed to respond to. You have the nerve to claim that I'm "parsing words" but you can't even manage to read the sentence in its entirety and base your argument on that?!! Oh now that's just classic!

Might I suggest Reading is Fundamental? Perhaps Hooked on Phonics?

And for the record, let me cite my "direct response" you just linked to above in its entirety:

Originally Posted by OAW

Well then I suggest you brush up on your logic skills. That phrase coming immediately after what I had just said meant only that I wasn't inclined to get into that topic. That fact that you latched onto your erroneous interpretation of what I meant does not preclude other, equally valid, interpretations. I suppose on the planet you live on it is somehow "illogical" to state that you won't try to "prove" a point that many assume to be the case because your personal opinion is that it is not. Especially when you are focused on another point entirely.

Now how is this not saying the exact same thing that I just said in my last two posts?

OAW

[Osedax]

You claimed I was being "dishonest" and "lying" because in your view A was the only "logical explanation". The million dollar question I have for you is .... exactly how is your interpretation the only "logical explanation" given the meaning of the phrase "but that's neither here nor there"? Hmmmmm?

The entire content of your post prior to the opinion statement leads the reader to one and only one conclusion - that the intent was racist. Everything, EVERYTHING, you said reinforces that statement with absolutely no hedging or doubt.

When you say "I have my personal opinion" right after EVERYTHING you just said about how the letter is racist, you have made your opinion crystal clear based solely on what you said.

If you had said it could be racist if read this way or not racist if read that way or hedged your statements in any way, you'd have grounds for your opinon to be that the intent wasn't racist. But you didn't - every word pointed the same way - the post was racist, the intent was racist. And now you expect anyone to believe, after that totally one sided extremely focused rant, that your opinion is anything other then that the intent was racist?

Hell no. Stop lying.

As I said before:
Either it was your personal opinion that the intent was racist and you're now playing stupid word games.

Or you're so bad at understanding the English language that you really have no idea how these statements could relate to each other.

You pick.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The answer to your question is "The rest of the freaking sentence!"

You clearly have a comprehension issue.

When I say this:
My point is, there is no logical reason you would say "I have my personal opinion" where you specifically said it, after your statement that you won't try to "prove" that the author is racist, unless it was your personal opinion that the author's intent was racist.

That phrase, "I have my personal opinion", coming immediately after what you just said, draws only one logical conclusion - it is your personal opinion that the author's intent was racist. There is no other logical way to explain that phrase at that location in that statement.

What part of that statement makes you think for an instant that I'm talking about the "but that's neither here nor there" part of what you said?

What malfunction in that tiny little brain of yours makes you skip the direct quotes "I have my personal opinion" and jump to the irrelivent text about "but that's neither here nor there."?!


You are clearly to stupid to understand a direct question and I now understand why you are left wonder why I ignore your completely irrelievent, off topic and idiotic response.


Let's try this one more time for fun, see if you can get your head out of your ass and all:

There is no logical reason you would say "I have my personal opinion" where you specifically said it, after your statement that you won't try to "prove" that the author is racist, unless it was your personal opinion that the author's intent was racist.

That phrase, "I have my personal opinion", coming immediately after what you just said, draws only one logical conclusion - it is your personal opinion that the author's intent was racist. There is no other logical way to explain that phrase at that location in that statement.

Now, if you talk about how you said "but that's neither here nor there", then you're again just ducking the issue.

Let the word games begin (again).

Might I suggest Reading is Fundamental? Perhaps Hooked on Phonics?

I strongly suggest you stop mocking those sites and consider what they have to offer as you are in need of some sort of reading comprehension help.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

The entire content of your post prior to the opinion statement leads the reader to one and only one conclusion - that the intent was racist. Everything, EVERYTHING, you said reinforces that statement with absolutely no hedging or doubt.

When you say "I have my personal opinion" right after EVERYTHING you just said about how the letter is racist, you have made your opinion crystal clear based solely on what you said.

Oh so nooooooowwwww you want to look at a post in its entirety? Or is it just the first half of the post? Cause for the last few posts you only wanted to talk about the "I have my personal opinion" phrase!

Dude. Take anything out of my original post. ANYTHING. And prove how this ....

Originally Posted by OAW

Imagine if the origin of the email was an Obama supporter who sent it anonymously into said "circles" ... knowing how it would be perceived and take off like wild fire ... in a (successful) attempt to make them look silly.

... conflicts with that original statement. I've challenged you to do so repeatedly and you've yet to do it. As I said earlier, if you want to say that you don't "believe" it ... that's fine by me. I don't particularly give a sh*t what you "believe". I also stated before that what you are saying is a valid (albeit incorrect) interpretation of my original post. But when you say there is "no other logical explanation" ... that's a position that you should have the intellectual fortitude to either backup or retract. Again, that's what an intelligent, logical debate is all about. And that's the only sandbox that I play in around here.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

What part of that statement makes you think for an instant that I'm talking about the "but that's neither here nor there" part of what you said?

What malfunction in that tiny little brain of yours makes you skip the direct quotes "I have my personal opinion" and jump to the irrelivent text about "but that's neither here nor there."?!


You are clearly to stupid to understand a direct question and I now understand why you are left wonder why I ignore your completely irrelievent, off topic and idiotic response.

I'm well aware of your "direct quote". As I'm aware of the fact that you weren't talking about the " .... but that's neither here nor there part". Again, the million dollar question is ...

Why do you insist on focusing only on a phrase ... on a sentence fragment ... instead of the sentence ... in its entirety? Or better yet ... the post ... in its entirety? Is it because doing that is too much like right? Is it because doing so would not allow you to continue this inane argument?

Do you really have to resort to "parsing words" to try to make a point? Better yet, are you simply too obtuse to recognize that your focus on a phrase is the textbook definition of it?

OAW

PS: At this stage in the game, the questions above are indeed rhetorical. I only list them so the thread audience can see how desperate and untenable your ignore everything OAW said except a particular phrase "strategy" has really become.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Oh so nooooooowwwww you want to look at a post in its entirety? Or is it just the first half of the post? Cause for the last few posts you only wanted to talk about the "I have my personal opinion" phrase!

Just now? Once again you show how clueless and confused are you - I quoted it and discussed it in my first response to you.

Dude. Take anything out of my original post. ANYTHING. And prove how this ....

Whether your later statement conflicts with the first post or not is irrelivent.

... conflicts with that original statement. I've challenged you to do so repeatedly and you've yet to do it. As I said earlier, if you want to say that you don't "believe" it ... that's fine by me. I don't particularly give a sh*t what you "believe". I also stated before that what you are saying is a valid (albeit incorrect) interpretation of my original post. But when you say there is "no other logical explanation" ... that's a position that you should have the intellectual fortitude to either backup or retract. Again, that's what an intelligent, logical debate is all about. And that's the only sandbox that I play in around here.

I have backed it up multiple times now and if you didn't have head up your ass you'd know that.

Here it is again:
The entire content of your post prior to the opinion statement leads the reader to one and only one conclusion - that the intent was racist. Everything, EVERYTHING, you said reinforces that statement with absolutely no hedging or doubt.

When you say "I have my personal opinion" right after EVERYTHING you just said about how the letter is racist, you have made your opinion crystal clear based solely on what you said.

Your quote does not in any way change that.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I'm well aware of your "direct quote". As I'm aware of the fact that you weren't talking about the " .... but that's neither here nor there part". Again, the million dollar question is ...

Why do you insist on focusing only on a phrase ... on a sentence fragment ... instead of the sentence ... in its entirety? Or better yet ... the post ... in its entirety? Is it because doing that is too much like right? Is it because doing so would not allow you to continue this inane argument?

I think the million dollar question is, why do you keep on lying? Don't worry, I know why. You lie because I showed how idiotic you are and now you'll say anything, do anything for e-revenge. In other words, you're having an e-hissy fit. lol

Do you really have to resort to "parsing words" to try to make a point?

Oooh poor baby is upset that I pointed out how retarded he is for butchering his statements and is trying to throw it back in my face. Soooooo cute, and predictable.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

Whether your later statement conflicts with the first post or not is irrelivent.

Oh so now it's irrelevant? Let's put aside the fact that you've misspelled the word repeatedly in this thread thus far. I'll just remind you of your own words in response to when I first said what my personal opinion was regarding the author's intent:

Originally Posted by Osedax

However, the next statements from you makes it crystal clear that while you can't / won't try to prove it, you believe it:

So I certainly won't waste a lot of energy trying to "prove" that the author's intent was racist. I have my personal opinion ... but that's neither here nor there.

There's no other logical reason you would say those things together, it wouldn't make sense at all to mean anything else.

So right there was when you made the statement that your position was the only one that was "logical" ... the only one that "made any sense". Now pay attention to the part of your statement in bold above. Again, the issue here is not what you "believe". When you say "There's no other logical reason ..." that statement becomes an assertion of fact ... not of belief. To claim that my subsequent statement ... which showed this to be demonstrably false ... is "irrelivent" simply shows just how much of an intellectual lightweight you really are .... because the difference quite obviously escapes you.

OAW

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Oh so now it's irrelevant? Let's put aside the fact that you've misspelled the word repeatedly in this thread thus far.

Really? First you try to pull forum rank and now you're trying to be a spell check nazi? LOL Is this to mask the fact that you lie?

How about this, you continue to point out my spelling mistakes and I'll continue to point out your lies?

I'll just remind you of your own words in response to when I first said what my personal opinion was regarding the author's intent:

So right there was when you made the statement that your position was the only one that was "logical" ... the only one that "made any sense". Now pay attention to the part of your statement in bold above.

Thank you captain obvious, but I already know I have been saying the same thing since the beginning. Remember - you're the one that's trying to get away with the lie here, not me. Duh.

Again, the issue here is not what you "believe".

This has nothing to do with "belief", it has to do with understanding the English language. So, as I've said before:

Either it was your personal opinion that the intent was racist and you're now playing stupid word games.

Or you're so bad at understanding the English language that you really have no idea how the statements you made relate to each other.

But you'll just ignore this again like you have every other time, like you do everything else that shows you are lying or idiotic.

When you say "There's no other logical reason ..." that statement becomes an assertion of fact ... not of belief.

The fact is, you made your opinion crystal clear in your first post, I've already explained how and you completely ignored because you have no response. You now deny it so that you can play these silly word games.

But just in case you forgot, here it is again:
When you say "I have my personal opinion" right after EVERYTHING you just said about how the letter is racist, you have made your opinion crystal clear based solely on what you said.

If you had said it could be racist if read this way or not racist if read that way or hedged your statements in any way, you'd have grounds for your opinion to be that the intent wasn't racist. But you didn't - every word pointed the same way - the post was racist, the intent was racist. And now you expect anyone to believe, after that totally one sided extremely focused rant, that your opinion is anything other then that the intent was racist?

I'm sure you'll ignore it again because if you don't brush it under the rug by giving completely irrelevant responses, you'd be forced to admit you are wrong.

I mean really, the entire extent of your reply was:
Oh so nooooooowwwww you want to look at a post in its entirety? Or is it just the first half of the post? Cause for the last few posts you only wanted to talk about the "I have my personal opinion" phrase!

Which, by the way, is it's own specially little piece of stupid.

A quick quote from one of my prior posts shows I have been talking about far more then just "I have my personal opinion" (and there are other examples):
http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...2/#post3942879
There is no other logical way to explain that phrase at that location in that statement and the reason there is no other logical way to explain that phrase is a wonderful little word called "context". And by the way, I find it highly amusing that you're so quick to jump to the conclusion that the letter is racist based on context alone, but seem completely oblivious to the context of your own statements.

Are you to stupid to understand that "that phrase at that location in that statement" means I'm talking about more then just "I have my personal opinion"? I know you're not, you're just lying when you say I am nooooooowwwww looking at the post in its entirety because it's easier to tell that lie then to address what I actually said.


The fact is, you know what you said in your first post was idiotic and based on terrible assumptions so instead of admitting it, you've done nothing but try to divert the topic (including spell checking? LOL) for the past several posts now. I mean really, you've made it very clear that you sure as heck don't want to talk about that!


The fact is, you have told lies again and again to try to switch the topic to me instead of your idiotic statements and opinion about that letter.

"The context factors into the argument. It's not some separate and distinct thing that has no relevance to what I'm saying. You want to dismiss the context? Fine. Knock yourself out."

I dismiss the context? No. And it's just lying to say I did.

And then there is this whole "you don't know what my super secret opinion was that I wasn't saying and is counter to everything I ever expressed about the letter and I was just pointing out how the letter was racist but I don't actually believe it even though I said it multiple times" garbage.


The fact is, you are to stupid to understand I wasn't talking about "but that's neither here nor there" when I specifically quoted "I have my personal opinion", resulting in you saying even more idiotic things.

You said:
But again, the "plausible deniability" factor is there. So I certainly won't waste a lot of energy trying to "prove" that the author's intent was racist. I have my personal opinion ... but that's neither here nor there.

I said:
My point is, there is no logical reason you would say "I have my personal opinion" where you specifically said it, after your statement that you won't try to "prove" that the author is racist, unless it was your personal opinion that the author's intent was racist.

That phrase, "I have my personal opinion", coming immediately after what you just said, draws only one logical conclusion - it is your personal opinion that the author's intent was racist. There is no other logical way to explain that phrase at that location in that statement.

Your direct response to me was this:
That phrase coming immediately after what I had just said meant only that I wasn't inclined to get into that topic.

I mean really? Your answer has got to be about the most retarded response ever... And the best part is, you tried to claim it was my fault that you're an idiot because you couldn't figure out that I was talking about "I have my personal opinion" even though I said I was talking about "I have my personal opinion".

To claim that my subsequent statement ... which showed this to be demonstrably false ... is "irrelevant" simply shows just how much of an intellectual lightweight you really are .... because the difference quite obviously escapes you.

You can repeat that to yourself till you are blue in the face, but it will never change the fact that you're a liar on an internet forum that's made to have open discussion.


You've already had a chance to refute these statements with substantive responses, multiple times, and you've failed to do so every time, so I expect nothing different now. But hey, I misspelled "irrelevant" and that's something for you to cling to, right?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

Yakkety yak yak ... blah blah blah ..... all over the map ... incoherent ... I think I'm cracking under the pressure BS ...

Whatever ...

Originally Posted by Osedax

When you say "I have my personal opinion" right after EVERYTHING you just said about how the letter is racist, you have made your opinion crystal clear based solely on what you said.

If you had said it could be racist if read this way or not racist if read that way or hedged your statements in any way, you'd have grounds for your opinion to be that the intent wasn't racist. But you didn't - every word pointed the same way - the post was racist, the intent was racist. And now you expect anyone to believe, after that totally one sided extremely focused rant, that your opinion is anything other then that the intent was racist?

First of all I didn't have to "hedge" my statement about my opinion of the author's intent ... because I made no statement of what it was in that original post. I only said that I had one. Do you even realize what the term "hedge" means? Simple analogy Boy Genius .... just how can one "hedge" a bet that hasn't even been placed yet? But anyway ....

Let's keep it real here .... you made a valid (albeit incorrect) ASSUMPTION about what my opinion was. I certainly don't begrudge you for that. The problem is that you don't seem to understand the nature of the discussion that we are having. I am by no means trying to convince you of the "honesty" of that opinion. So it's baffling that you persist in expending so much energy trying to prove that I was "lying". Well, actually it's not all that baffling since it's a pretty transparent attempt to avoid the real issue. But again .. for the record ... the only bone of contention here is that after I did say what my opinion was ... your continued refusal to acknowledge that this statement of yours ....

Originally Posted by Osedax

There's no other logical reason you would say those things together, it wouldn't make sense at all to mean anything else.

... with regard to my original post is simply factually incorrect and has long since crossed the threshold of deliberate obtuseness. So let's try a different angle and talk about "hedging" one's statement since you obviously want to go that route. And let's see what happens when you apply your own standards to your own statement. Because that statement seemed pretty emphatic to me. No wiggle room there. Definitely didn't hedge your statement in anyway whatsoever. That is why I said ....

Originally Posted by OAW

When you say "There's no other logical reason ..." that statement becomes an assertion of fact ... not of belief.

Now as we have seen, when I challenged you repeatedly to show how my opinion regarding the author's intent conflicted with my original post ... you simply ignored it. Then when I continued to press you on it because it gets to the crux of the issue here you finally said this ....

Originally Posted by Osedax

Whether your later statement conflicts with the first post or not is irrelivent.

Now let's put aside the fact that, in and of itself, this response is the intellectual equivalent of "going out like a b*tch". I think everyone here can clearly see that at this stage in the game if I asked you if 2 + 2 = 4 you would be loathe to respond with an honest answer if it would undermine your argument.

Here's the point. Again, what you "believe" is not the issue. Let's see if you can finally just set that aside and address the "Real Deal Holyfield". When YOU make the emphatic, definitive, unequivocal statement that ....

Originally Posted by Osedax

There's no other logical reason you would say those things together, it wouldn't make sense at all to mean anything else.

.... then this is a statement with no hedging whatsoever. It is an assertion of fact ... which should ... IF TRUE ... be able to stand on its own! REGARDLESS of whether I was being "dishonest" about my opinion regarding the author's intent or not!!!! EVEN IF it was a complete fabrication (which, for the record, it's not) because oh I don't know ... I was just so "intimidated" by your rudimentary debating skills that I was forced to "lie" ... that still does not absolve you from backing up your own statement!!!

If you were an attorney in a court room do you not still have to prove your own case even if you think the opposing counsel is lying through his teeth?

If you were on the debate team do you not still have to prove your own argument even if you know for a fact that the other team is arguing the side that they disagree with?

You didn't say "I don't BELIEVE you would say those things together unless you thought the author's intent was racist". You didn't say "I don't THINK you would say those things together unless you thought the author's intent was racist". You didn't even say "I think it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY that you would say those things together unless you thought the author's intent was racist". Nothing of the sort. You declared your view to be the ONLY LOGICAL EXPLANATION. Well if that's the case, any other explanation (e.g. the one I gave) is by definition ILLOGICAL. So when I ask you to show how this ...

Originally Posted by OAW

Imagine if the origin of the email was an Obama supporter who sent it anonymously into said "circles" ... knowing how it would be perceived and take off like wild fire ... in a (successful) attempt to make them look silly.

.... conflicts with or contradicts my original post .... that really shouldn't be all that difficult for you to do. No need to "b*tch up" and try to dismiss it as "irrelivent" ... because if it is so illogical that ought to be a cake walk. Simple. Easy. Even a caveman can do it!!!

But you haven't ... because you can't. Imagine that.

The fact that I presented an opinion that was in no way logically precluded by my original post proves that your "There's no other logical explanation ..." statement was utter and complete BS. Again, it is demonstrably false. So unless you can show otherwise ... and to do that you will actually have to address both of the posts in question and not just rattle on ad nauseam about the first one only ... I suggest you build a bridge and get over it.

Case closed. Stick a fork in it. It's a wrap!!

OAW

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

You clearly have a comprehension issue.

When I say this:
My point is, there is no logical reason you would say "I have my personal opinion" where you specifically said it, after your statement that you won't try to "prove" that the author is racist, unless it was your personal opinion that the author's intent was racist.

That phrase, "I have my personal opinion", coming immediately after what you just said, draws only one logical conclusion - it is your personal opinion that the author's intent was racist. There is no other logical way to explain that phrase at that location in that statement.

Yeah, so I don't know what you guys are actually talking about from a subject-matter standpoint but after reading this post I have to point out your concept of logic is wrong. In the passage you have quoted, you have two premises and no (logical) conclusion.

Statement A says "I certainly won't waste a lot of energy trying to "prove" that the author's intent was racist."
Statement B says "I have my personal opinion ... but that's neither here nor there."

There is no way to obtain statement B as logically true from the premise in statement A as in fact they are both logical premises. There is no conclusion to be obtained (logically) from these two premises.


To say that a person makes statement A, followed by statement B and claim statement B is the "only one logical conclusion" to be obtained from statement A is wrong. Not kinda/maybe/sorta wrong. It's just outright wrong. That's not how logic works. You draw logical conclusions based on the truth value* of a conclusion within the context of its premises. And in your example above you have two premises and no conclusion.
*This does NOT have anything to do with whether or not a logical conclusion is factually correct (i.e.: factually "true"). It has to do with whether or not a conclusion is logically true. And a logically true conclusion can be factually "false" based on the truth values of the premises upon which it is based.


::Sorry for the intrusion; Carry on with your incessant bickering.::

[Osedax]

Unfortunatly you're looking at just half the post. Part of that is my fault for not posting the full text every time I post, but part is also your fault for jumping into the middle of the discussion.

Here is the full text:
http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...a/#post3940712

Originally Posted by OAW 

The author didn't directly say anything about Obama's race, but in all honesty I think it was implied. Only the most virulently racist right-wingers will go there directly. OTOH, there are others who might think the same things but are generally smart enough not to verbalize such sentiments publicly. They'll use "code words" that get the message across but retain a certain level of "plausible deniability". For instance, the "arrogant, immature, and self-centered" comment in this particular piece, along with the "elitist" comments that we have seen time and again directed at President Obama feed right into the mindset of those who view him (or any other successful African-American) as "uppity". The latter is a very racially loaded term when directed at blacks. So the former can be construed as a way of saying it without actually saying it.

But again, the "plausible deniability" factor is there. So I certainly won't waste a lot of energy trying to "prove" that the author's intent was racist. I have my personal opinion ... but that's neither here nor there. Regardless of whether or not there was a racial aspect involved, what we see here without question is blatant hypocrisy. The same crowd that has their panties all in a bunch over Obama's feet on the desk didn't have a word to say when Bush did the exact same thing. Is it because one is black and the other white? Or because one is a Democrat and the other a Republican? Or because one is a liberal and the other a conservative? Who knows? In any event, you'd think that there would be more substantive things for these people to concern themselves with.

So as you can see, my statement is based on far more then just the quoted text - he goes through an entire rant about how the letter implies racism.

And when you consider that all together, there really is only one logical concludsion.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

Unfortunatly you're looking at just half the post. Part of that is my fault for not posting the full text every time I post, but part is also your fault for jumping into the middle of the discussion.

Here is the full text:
http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...a/#post3940712


So as you can see, my statement is based on far more then just the quoted text - he goes through an entire rant about how the letter implies racism.

And when you consider that all together, there really is only one logical concludsion assumption to be made.

Fixed.

Just because you call it a "logical concludsion" does NOT make it a) logical or b) an obtained conclusion. Call it an assumption, or a rational assumption, or an estimation, but don't call it a logical conclusion when it is neither.

[Osedax]

The entire content of his post prior to the opinion statement leads the reader to one and only one conclusion - that the intent of the letter was racist. Everything he said reinforces that statement with absolutely no hedging or doubt. He even says that he thinks "race" was an implied compenent of the intent of the letter.

When someone says all of that, where everything leads to one conclusion, then immediatly after states that "I have my personal opinion", there is only one logical conclusion for what they are suggesting that opinion is.

You can not read his long rant on how the letter was racist, then not draw the conclusion that his opinion is that the intent was racist. That's like saying you can't loigically conclude that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is anti-semitic because he says he "respects Jews very much". Yeah.

Maybe this will help.
Argumentation theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[BadKosh]

Using Wiki as anything other than another OPINION is sloppy.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Using Wiki as anything other than another OPINION is sloppy.

So providing absolutely nothing to support your statements is better then providing a wiki page? Please.

[BadKosh]

What is your area of most expertise? Look up something on Wiki and check on whether it is absolutely correct. Since you haven't noticed, either you don't look at it as a reference or don't have sufficient background to know the difference.

I could give you pages, but I'm pretty sure you have no idea about the specifics of American Steam Locomotives. I correct their typos and 'facts' when I know and have copies of the original supporting documents.

[Osedax]

Ok, let's clean up the stupid, juvenile comments from both sides and actually have a discussion? I'll go first. I'm going to only address the core of the issue to keep the post clean and to the point.

Originally Posted by OAW 

Let's keep it real here .... you made a valid (albeit incorrect) ASSUMPTION about what my opinion was.

It became more then just an assumption when you said "I think [racism] was implied". You made clear at that point what you think - racism was implied by the letter.

The next question is whether you believe it was implied on purpose, which would require intent, or if it was simply a bad choice of words, which would leave your statement open to possibly mean it was implied, but was not the intent and was simply accidental.

The answer to that question is pretty much the entire rest of your first paragraph.

First let's look at what you don't say:
You do not once say or suggest the author was just sloppy or that it might simply be a perception issue etc. The fact that you didn't hedge does not prove anything one way or the other, but had that hedge been there, then your "opinion" could easily be that it wasn't intentional and I'd have to accept that. But you didn't.

So we have to look what you did say:
What you do say is that people that write letters like this, unless they are "virulently racist right-wingers", won't go "there" (racism) directly and that "others who might think the same things but are generally smart enough not to verbalize such sentiments publicly" would instead use "code words" and maintain "plausible deniability".

You then went on to take an example from the authors letter and show how the words are code words and how they are used to maintain plausible deniability.

This makes clear beyond any doubt that you believe the implied racism was intentional and not simply accidental and unless your crazy (not accusing), you can't have two different arguments in your head at the same time, it does not make sense and is not logical.

That's like saying I think the earth is flat but it's my opinion that the earth is round. You can not logically think the earth is flat but have an opinion that the earth is round.

Likewise you can not think racism was intentionally implied through subtle means (which you outlined in full detail) but then also have the opinion that there was no racist intent.

Either you believe he was using "code words" and "plausible deniability" or you don't. You made clear you do, you said you do, you said you think the author implied [racism] and you showed us exactly how you think it was implied.

If you think racism was implied in the ways you stated, then you must have the opinion that his intent was racist. You can't think he implied racism via the intentional use of "code words" and "plausible deniability" but didn't do it intentionally.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

What is your area of most expertise? Look up something on Wiki and check on whether it is absolutely correct. Since you haven't noticed, either you don't look at it as a reference or don't have sufficient background to know the difference.

Why don't you pay attention to the discussion before you go off the cuff about wiki? I didn't present it as a source of fact or even reference to support my statement. You could delete the line and it wouldn't have any impact positive or negative on what I said.

I could give you pages, but I'm pretty sure you have no idea about the specifics of American Steam Locomotives. I correct their typos and 'facts' when I know and have copies of the original supporting documents.

Even with the typos and facts regarding the American Steam Locomotives, the information provided by wiki is far more accurate then the information I have or have reasonable access to.

So while it shouldn't be taken as the definitive answer on all subjects, it's pretty much always far more accurate then laymen knowledge on a given subject. So to dismiss it because of some typos and a few minor fact errors is ridiculous.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

Even with the typos and facts regarding the American Steam Locomotives, the information provided by wiki is far more accurate then the information I have or have reasonable access to.

How would you know? Unless you already know the subject matter you have no way of knowing whether the information wiki has is accurate.

[OAW]

Osedax,

The fundamental problem here is that you simply don't seem to understand the difference between a logical conclusion that is valid and one that is also sound. I have tried, in vain, to explain it to you. Dcmacdaddy has attempted to do so as well. And you still don't get it!

An argument is valid if and only if the (presumptive) truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion. Or IOW, a logically valid argument is one where the conclusion follows from the premises.

Your argument can be summarized as follows:

A. OAW said "race was implied" by the author in his original post.
B. Deliberately implying race equates to racist intent.
C. OAW stated that he had a "personal opinion" regarding the author's intent.
D. Therefore, OAW's "personal opinion" was that the author's intent was "racist".

A, B, and C are premises. D is the conclusion. In fact, D is a logical conclusion because as I've stated (repeatedly) before ... the conclusion you reached is valid since it logically follows from the premises. And I don't begrudge you for thinking that. However, when you take it further by emphatically stating that D is the only logical conclusion ... complete with accusations about me being "dishonest" and "lying" ... well then the question becomes - "Is your argument logically sound?".

Now an argument is sound if and only if:

1. The argument is valid.
2. All of its premises are true.

As acknowledged, you have #1 covered. The problem is that you are falling down on #2. Specifically, premise B above is simply not true. Well let me be more specific. It may be true some of the time. It may even be true most of the time. But it is not necessarily true all of the time. I have repeatedly proven that to be the case. Again, when I subsequently revealed what my opinion regarding the author's intent actually was I said this:

Originally Posted by OAW

Imagine if the origin of the email was an Obama supporter who sent it anonymously into said "circles" ... knowing how it would be perceived and take off like wild fire ... in a (successful) attempt to make them look silly.

That right there clearly shows that one can deliberately imply race to a certain crowd without having "racist intent" oneself. IOW, my opinion was that the author's intent was to showcase the racial hypocrisy that certainly exists within certain "circles" of the virulent opposition to President Obama. So again, it doesn't matter if you don't "believe" that this was my actual opinion or not. That's not the issue. Even on a hypothetical level ... one could do that. Just like Dave Chappelle can do a skit with himself playing a blind KKK leader who doesn't realize he is black ... make all kinds of racially charged statements (i.e. a "racial aspect to it") ... and not have racist intent himself for making those statements. The intent is to show the utter stupidity of racism in a comedic manner.

For your argument to be sound, premise B has to be true. Always. And if that is the case, then you should be able to show how the opinion I expressed conflicts with or contradicts my original statement. To date, you have failed to do so! You haven't even tried because you are too busy dismissing it as "irrelevant" and focusing only on my very first post. But it is very much relevant because it is crucial to the soundness of your argument!!

Bottom line? You argument is NOT sound .... and that is why your conclusion can best be described as a valid assumption.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

It became more then just an assumption when you said "I think [racism] was implied". You made clear at that point what you think - racism was implied by the letter.

*************** STOP! ******************

This right here is a prime example of what I'm talking about with respect to premise B above!!

Let's be clear on what I said.

Originally Posted by OAW

The author didn't directly say anything about Obama's race, but in all honesty I think it was implied.

Notice how you paraphrased it as "[racism]"?!!! And yes I know you put it in brackets to denote that it wasn't a direct quote. So let's not waste time on that. My point is that in your mind you EQUATE "implying race" with "racism"! Premise B!!!!!!

And I figured as much which was WHY my very first reply to you (after you responded to my original post) was ...

Originally Posted by OAW

We aren't going to see eye to eye on this issue and that's fine.

OAW

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

How would you know? Unless you already know the subject matter you have no way of knowing whether the information wiki has is accurate.

How do you know the dictionary is right? How do you know the source material you reference is right? Heck, I've received directions from the company that made them and they were wrong. How do you know anything is right at all ever?

Is wiki the only source ever that has the possibility of providing bad information? Of course not. Wiki has a strong history of being very accurate, especially since they started better screening the content.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The fundamental problem here is that you simply don't seem to understand the difference between a logical conclusion that is valid and one that is also sound. I have tried, in vain, to explain it to you. Dcmacdaddy has attempted to do so as well. And you still don't get it!

The fundamental problem here is you're not understanding what I'm saying and your A. B. C. list shows that. Maybe that's communication on my part, but I think you need to try harder too.

A. OAW said "race was implied" by the author in his original post.
B. Deliberately implying race equates to racist intent.
C. OAW stated that he had a "personal opinion" regarding the author's intent.
D. Therefore, OAW's "personal opinion" was that the author's intent was "racist".

This is wrong.

Here:
A. OAW said "race was implied" by the author in his original post.

B. Based on OAWs next statements about "virulently racist right-wingers" and how "others might think the same things but are generally smart enough not to verbalize such sentiments publicly", we conclude that when OAW said "race", he meant it in the context of "racist".

C. Because he meant "race" in the context of "racist", we can conclude that OAW feels that racism was implied in the letter.

D. My question is, does OAW consider the racism intentional, or is it simply a mistake. To determine that, we have to look at what else OAW said.

D1. OAW tells us how we can identify someone that is "racist" but also "smart enough not to verbalize such sentiments publicly" - by determining if they use "code words" and "plausible deniability":

"They'll use "code words" that get the message across but retain a certain level of "plausible deniability"."

D2. OAW now pulls a quote directly from the letter and shows how "arrogant" is a code word for "uppity" meant to maintain "plausible deniability":

"For instance, the "arrogant, immature, and self-centered" comment in this particular piece, along with the "elitist" comments that we have seen time and again directed at President Obama feed right into the mindset of those who view him (or any other successful African-American) as "uppity"."

E. This use of a direct quote from the letter as an example of "code words" and "plausible deniability" makes it very clear that OAW feels the author is using "code words" and "plausible deniability" in the letter.

F. Someone that is using "code words" and "plausible deniability" must be doing so intentionally - you don't use "code words" and "plausible deniability" by mistake. OAW reaffirms this:

"So the former can be construed as a way of saying it without actually saying it."

G. OAW believes the author is intentionally using "code words" and "plausible deniability" and because you can't use "code words" and "plausible deniability" on accident, OAW believes the author implied "racism" intentionally.

H. If OAW believes the author implied "racism" intentionally, then how can OAW hold the opinion that then author's "intent" wasn't racist?

I. He can not.

Notice how you "paraphrased" it as "[racism]".

Even if you don't paraphrase it as racism, we just need go to your next two sentence which make it very clear "it" is racism:
Only the most virulently racist right-wingers will go there directly. OTOH, there are others who might think the same things but are generally smart enough not to verbalize such sentiments publicly.


You keep trying to take one word or sentence and say it doesn't prove anything. Hey, this other word or sentence alone doesn't prove anything. That word or sentence alone doesn't prove anything. And you're right, each word, each sentence on it's own doesn't prove anything.

But when you put them all together, when you follow your post from one statement to the next and consider all the words in context, there is only one logical conclusion that can be made about your opinion of this author and his letter - that the author's intent was racist.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

How do you know the dictionary is right? How do you know the source material you reference is right? Heck, I've received directions from the company that made them and they were wrong. How do you know anything is right at all ever?

Is wiki the only source ever that has the possibility of providing bad information? Of course not. Wiki has a strong history of being very accurate, especially since they started better screening the content.

LOL!! Are you that new, young, or unobservant? It has been shown that political hacks and others have intentionally entered fake information to wiki. Usually, there are several incidents per year, and during the '08 election cycle, Dems were caught adding lies to the opponents entries. The whole premise of allowing anyone contribute means the chance for lies, BS and such is far greater than other sources. Why don't you understand this? Does it have to do with you losing the arguements you started?

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

LOL!! Are you that new, young, or unobservant? It has been shown that political hacks and others have intentionally entered fake information to wiki. Usually, there are several incidents per year, and during the '08 election cycle, Dems were caught adding lies to the opponents entries.

What part of this confused you?:
"especially since they started better screening the content."

The whole premise of allowing anyone contribute means the chance for lies, BS and such is far greater than other sources.

That is exceedingly dependent on both what you are looking up and what other sources you are using. But it's nice to see you are willing to make extremely vague statements to support what you want to believe. Cause clearly that's convincing.

Why don't you understand this?

I understand how to use wiki as a tool. Just because you don't use a hammer to drive in a screw doesn't mean a hammer has no use - you just need to know what that use is.

Does it have to do with you losing the arguements you started?

You can't even figure out what use might be derived from an information source like wiki and you expect me to believe you're able to determine who has or has not won even the most basic argument? I'll pass on your sage advise, thanks.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

What part of this confused you?:
"especially since they started better screening the content."

That is exceedingly dependent on both what you are looking up and what other sources you are using.

I understand how to use wiki as a tool.

You can't even figure out what use might be derived from an information source like wiki blah, blah, blah, etc

Why would you use a 'source' like Wiki to find facts? Obviously, it's the wrong tool. Do you believe they are screening 'better?' You seem to live in your head, not the real world.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

The fundamental problem here is you're not understanding what I'm saying and your A. B. C. list shows that. Maybe that's communication on my part, but I think you need to try harder too.

Actually I understand quite well. What you draw out into B - G in your post is simply condensed into premise B in mine. I'm well aware that you view my entire first paragraph in that manner. And that's fine. Again, I said I can see why you might take it like that. And maybe that's communication on my part as well, but perhaps you should follow your own advice and try harder too?

Originally Posted by Osedax

But when you put them all together, when you follow your post from one statement to the next and consider all the words in context, there is only one logical conclusion that can be made about your opinion of this author and his letter - that the author's intent was racist.

So in light of your admonition that we "communicate better" and "try harder" ... my suggestion is that you do yourself one better. Instead of trying to follow my original post from one statement to the next ... perhaps you should follow my postS from one statement to the next? Plural. A brief listing (in order) of my statements regarding my opinion of the author's intent:

1.

Originally Posted by OAW

So I certainly won't waste a lot of energy trying to "prove" that the author's intent was racist. I have my personal opinion ... but that's neither here nor there. Regardless of whether or not there was a racial aspect involved, what we see here without question is blatant hypocrisy.

2.

Originally Posted by OAW

We aren't going to see eye to eye on this issue and that's fine. I specifically said that there was nothing explicitly racist about the letter. I also said that it was my personal opinion that there was a racial aspect to the situation. Not the letter per se, but perhaps the motivation behind the letter ... namely, the very obvious double-standard involved. And for the record, a racial aspect being involved is not necessarily indicative of a person being KKK or something.

:::::HUGE freaking hint right there!!! ::::::

So hopefully you can dispense with the hyperbole going forward. Having said that, even my opinion isn't definitive ... I'm just saying that if I had to bet money on it I think that it is more likely than not to be a winner. But I also said earlier I wasn't going to waste a lot of energy trying to "prove" that my opinion is true because I recognize that I couldn't even if I wanted to. It's quite admittedly conjecture, which by definition is a conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

3.

Originally Posted by OAW

Excuse me ... but when did I say the author was "racist"? See that's the term you've been tossing around. Again, I specifically said that I didn't see anything explicitly "racist" in the email. But I also said that it was my opinion that race was implied. I said that I thought there was a racial aspect to it. Which, for the record, could have been done intentionally or subconsciously if my opinion is correct. Suffice it to say that there is a difference. Certainly nuanced ... but a difference nevertheless.

:::::Another HUGE freaking hint right there!!! ::::::

4.

Originally Posted by OAW

Imagine if the origin of the email was an Obama supporter who sent it anonymously into said "circles" ... knowing how it would be perceived and take off like wild fire ... in a (successful) attempt to make them look silly.

Now as soon as I got wind of this "controversy", that was the first thing that came to mind for me. I gave it a good 70-30% chance ... because after all, the wingnut crowd can be so easy! Of course, this is all conjecture like I said and I could easily be all wet on that.

So what's the bottom line when you look at all those postS together?

Point #1 is that all of these statements above are consistent with each other. There's no conflict or contradiction. No backpedaling of any sort.

Point #2 is that the first paragraph of the very first post you keep harping on allows for ALL of these possibilities. Here's why ....

Originally Posted by OAW

The author didn't directly say anything about Obama's race, but in all honesty I think it was implied.

As I stated, I thought that there was a 70% chance that the author's intent was to showcase the racial hypocrisy in certain "circles" of the anti-Obama crowd. But recognizing that at the end of the day this was all conjecture, I allowed for a 30% chance for other possibilities. One of which was that the author's intent was intentionally racist in a subtle kind of way (as you validly concluded). Another being that it was subconsciously racist a subtle kind of way.

Originally Posted by OAW

Only the most virulently racist right-wingers will go there directly. OTOH, there are others who might think the same things but are generally smart enough not to verbalize such sentiments publicly. They'll use "code words" that get the message across but retain a certain level of "plausible deniability".

All true. The point of all this was to provide some background as to why many people thought that there was a racial aspect involved in the "controversy" to one degree or another. Generally speaking, only a "virulently racist right winger" would say something explicitly racist. But perhaps I was overly optimistic in thinking that my use of the term "might" would also convey "might not" when it came to motivation. I could have just as easily omitted that word entirely and your interpretation of that statement would not have changed. But I didn't. The point being, someone who is being "intentionally racist" would think the same things as a "virulently racist right-winger". OTOH, some who had other motivations would not. Either way ... they would both use "code words" to get the message across ... just with different intent. And both have reasons for not verbalizing their true motivations publicly.

Originally Posted by OAW

For instance, the "arrogant, immature, and self-centered" comment in this particular piece, along with the "elitist" comments that we have seen time and again directed at President Obama feed right into the mindset of those who view him (or any other successful African-American) as "uppity". The latter is a very racially loaded term when directed at blacks. So the former can be construed as a way of saying it without actually saying it.

All true. The term "arrogant" does, in fact, have connotations of "uppity" in certain "circles". Regardless of the motivation behind the use of the term.

Originally Posted by OAW

But again, the "plausible deniability" factor is there. So I certainly won't waste a lot of energy trying to "prove" that the author's intent was racist. I have my personal opinion ... but that's neither here nor there.

So no, I wasn't going to try to prove that the author's intent was racist (as many have presumed). My focus was somewhere else entirely. I certainly thought this was possible, but IMO I thought it was more likely that there was another motivation at play.


And finally, with regard to your "correction" of my summary of your argument above. Perhaps I was too generous in my assessment of your understanding of logical debate before. Previously I thought you just didn't understand the difference between a logical conclusion that was valid and one that was also sound. But given that demonstration above it appears that you don't even grasp the fact that a logical argument only has ONE conclusion. You strung together a series of premises and drew "interim" conclusions from nearly all of them on the way to your "final" conclusion. To wit ...

A. A premise.
B. A premise and an interim conclusion drawn from B.
C. An interim conclusion drawn from B.
D1. A premise and an interim conclusion drawn from C.
D2. A premise.
E. An interim conclusion drawn from D2.
F. A premise.
G. An interim conclusion drawn from F.
H&I. Final conclusion.

Now that's bad enough in and of itself! But even if we were to try to tackle that facsimile of an argument, for your "final conclusion" to be sound all of the "interim conclusions" would have to logically follow from their related "premises" and on top of that all of the "premises" would have to be true. Always. And true to form, you have not demonstrated that. You really would have been much better off attempting to do so with the condensed premise B in my post above.


OAW

[dcmacdaddy]

You guys know I was kidding when I said "carry on with your incessant bickering".


I just want to add one point: Wikipedia in and of itself is not a bad source of information. In fact, it is an excellent starting point for getting much more information on a given subject. But that's just it, Wikipedia is a starting point. To learn anything one must not take a single given source as the absolute authority on a subject matter. One must start with a source, then examine the sources used by that source, to gain a fuller understanding of a subject. Heck, in the academic world of philosophy the most trusted "sources" of material are usually not the original authors of a treatise, rather it is the subsequent scholar who best explains/interprets the ideas of the original treatise. The same goes for much of the scholarship in the literary fields as well.


TL;DR: Wikipedia is an excellent initial source of material--especially for articles with copious footnotes--but should never be considered an authoritative reference on a subject.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

You guys know I was kidding when I said "carry on with your incessant bickering".

Indeed.

Osedax,

Feel free to have the last word. Whether you do or not ... I'm inclined to let this one go to the "scorecards".

OAW

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Indeed.

Osedax,

Feel free to have the last word. Whether you do or not ... I'm inclined to let this one go to the "scorecards".

OAW

Since I'm top dog around here, I am officially the scorecards. You win.

[ebuddy]

I am the Kwisatz Haderach! There are no winners here, only losers.