|
FirmhandKY -> RE: In Search of People of Color (at a "TEA party rally") (9/14/2010 3:31:00 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
try again homey. he made the statement that 'the tea party does not exclude anyone'.
context? then if he meant to say, the tea party does not exclude anyone based on skin color'. he should have said it.
Any group that excludes people because of the color of their skin is a racist group.
(complete thought, we call this a premise.)
However, I will point out to you that if we examine your cavil and popeyes (independently or collectively) and the point of your arguments that would lead to 'strawman', then by their policy the natural division of 'color issues' would make them not very friendly to the average joe-sixpack of colour.
The tea partiers do not exclude anyone.
(complete thought, we call this a premise also, in fact, since it is the final, we would call it the peroration, or the conclusion or.........you see where I am going)
I pointed out, that the baggers are indeed exclusionary with extreme prejudice.
Now, you did in one sense raise a valid cavil, and since you imply a connection to the two sentences as if they were connected by comma, and the anyone becomes anyone (understood) of any color....
I will accept that premise, and will clearly state that the baggers are in my opinion exclusionary with extreme prejudice towards factions of people but I did not and do not in my (and never have...feel free to look it up and catch me) statements have never said or intended to impugn, imply, impute or otherwise indicate that they are racist.
You are clearly substituting "political affiliation and beliefs" for skin color, changing the entire meaning of his comment, and you then proceed to argue with the totally new premise that you substituted for the original one.
You did say that right? I mean that's you right Firm? I ain't misquoting you am I?
because perforce there are political affiliations and beliefs that due to the spinning of the earth and the humans and environs spinning in this would (you got the meaning) cause certain affinity of skin color one to another, is that not so?
So, I will accept mildly guilty if it can be pleaded, but no more, and certainly not a mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
His second sentence takes it's meaning from his first sentence.
He said:
Any group that excludes people because of the color of their skin is a racist group. The tea partiers do not exclude anyone.
Most people, not looking to simply attack him, would clearly understand that the "missing" clause from the second sentence is same clause as the first sentence, but wasn't written out because such a construction is awkward in spoken language (and because of the topic of the thread would be understand):
Any group that excludes people because of the color of their skin is a racist group. The tea partiers do not exclude anyone because of the color of their skin.
Unless, of course, someone didn't take the time to really read his entire comment. Or was more interested in attacking him, and the concept for ideological reasons.
The fault isn't with servant. He wrote for clarity. You read for ammunition.
BANG!
Now you are being obtuse and less than clear in your own writing, assuming that we will take the care and effort to understand what you actually mean, rather than what you are actually saying. And if we guess wrong, it gives you more ammunition to attack us.
Not playing, thank you.
Go fish.
Firm
|
|
|
|
