epepke
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,264
It would be a welcome relief from the "haw, haw, haw, the chickens are coming home to roost" stuff that we usually hear from overseas.
It would be a welcome relief from the "haw, haw, haw, the chickens are coming home to roost" stuff that we usually hear from overseas.
Por qué molestia?
Oh, you Fox news ditto heads are such a pain in the bum sometimes! It's like I have to do all the work for you. I guess you're not used to figuring things out on your own...
Were they rioting to be recognized as a minority group either ethnic or religious? No. There were no references to Palestine, to Iraq or to any of the issues typically brought in by religious muslims. They were rioting because they wanted to be accepted as full citizens. They believed in the French model (individual integration through citizenship) but they felt cheated because of their social and economic exclusion. Hence they destroy what they see as the tools of failed social promotion: schools, social welfare offices, gymnasiums.
Here's an collection of points of view by several french political commentators.
What's behind the Paris riots? A roundup of (mostly sensible) opinions
Last edited:
Petit
Edited by tim:
I would have thought that would require the feminine "petite". Saying it in French doesn't make it any better. Please desist.
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't tell you how glad I am that you're out of school on summer break, and have apparently successfully completed your first semester of French.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
I don't watch Fox news and was never a "ditto head." Ad hominems still do not make your argument any stronger.
The issue is who does your work for you. If you want to convince people that things are a certain way, it's up to you to provide evidence, and your say-so doesn't cut it.
Okay, so your evidence is that you've read some other people who think that way too.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Being insulting in more than one language doesn't improve your argument either.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Yes, I did.
Name-calling still does not make your argument stronger. Reported again.
Insults do not make your argument stronger. The issues are not very complicated.
If you read through this thread, you may have noticed that most of what I've said agrees with what you've said. What you're being called on is the difference between your assertions and actual evidence, a subject that seems to go over your head.
There seems to be nothing in your post except personal attacks, so there is very little to respond to.
Non.
Orwell-
"The thing is, the people at Reuters and other news agencies are a lot more aware of what's going on in France than you are, and they write their articles accordingly."
"Oh, you Fox news ditto heads are such a pain in the bum sometimes! It's like I have to do all the work for you. I guess you're not used to figuring things out on your own."
Most news agencies have an agenda to some point. Do we need to take sides or can we just go by the facts? Facts are not quotes, insults, and personal opinions.
Maybe this thread should stear toward the cause and affects of the incident and less on proving how good we can insult each other.
Instead of lumping the rioters in a "group", let's break them in to several "groups" to compare them. Since it was mentioned earlier- LA riots were not just blacks angry at police, but people finding a reason to cause damage, loot, other races coming out to clash with them. They were not all black OR angry at police, but the news will focus on "the blacks are rioting and destroying the city".
Not sure if that even compares to this really. Comparing hundreds to thousands. French riot seems more focused toward the mayor and less on attacking everyone in sight. Bah, have to finish later, kids soccer game.
"The thing is, the people at Reuters and other news agencies are a lot more aware of what's going on in France than you are, and they write their articles accordingly."
"Oh, you Fox news ditto heads are such a pain in the bum sometimes! It's like I have to do all the work for you. I guess you're not used to figuring things out on your own."
Most news agencies have an agenda to some point. Do we need to take sides or can we just go by the facts? Facts are not quotes, insults, and personal opinions.
Maybe this thread should stear toward the cause and affects of the incident and less on proving how good we can insult each other.
Instead of lumping the rioters in a "group", let's break them in to several "groups" to compare them. Since it was mentioned earlier- LA riots were not just blacks angry at police, but people finding a reason to cause damage, loot, other races coming out to clash with them. They were not all black OR angry at police, but the news will focus on "the blacks are rioting and destroying the city".
Not sure if that even compares to this really. Comparing hundreds to thousands. French riot seems more focused toward the mayor and less on attacking everyone in sight. Bah, have to finish later, kids soccer game.
Belz...
Fiend God
Humm, then I'm sorry, for my question should have been sufficiently insulting on its own.
Belz...
Fiend God
They're also primarily mammals, as I've stated.
Whose property was destroyed? Who acted, and who was acted upon? The mammilian qualification instantly vanishes when you answer these questions, as it applies equally.
BTW, why "primarily" mammals? Are you saying there are upright-walking reptiles inhabiting France?
'Cuz that would be cool.
Oh, I have to do an hour-long production number to get you to provide evidence for a claim, but I suppose you expect me to provide a translation for you on first request.
Very well. But I choose the one I translate. It's number 124, which translates, literally, as "Little ****, go," idiomatically as "Get out of here, you little ****." I know the censor-bot will asterisk out the actual word I typed; I didn't actually quote your post, as I didn't want to be in the ironic position of repeating a post that I had reported as offensive. To be fair to you, I pointed out to the mod that the insult is not nearly as offensive in French as it would be translated into English.
Separately.
Here's what you said there:
You have no way of knowing this.
And how far is that? Have you done any investigation?
What is that "significant" number? Fifty percent? Fifteen? Five? Zero-point-five?
Eighty-four was a wikipedia article. Couldn't you find a significant quote for me so I don't have to read the whole stupid thing? In any case, was it a wikipedia article about the current riots?
And 109 wasn't even one of your posts.
Well, they are called "frogs," after all. But those are amphibians.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Everyone in France is a mammal, so that's not a useful distinction. Not everyone in France is Muslim, so if Muslims are rioting and non-Muslims are not, it makes sense to notice it and wonder why.
Belz...
Fiend God
Sure.
All I'm saying is that the mere fact that they're muslims doesn't mean it's part of the reason. If a bunch of atheists who happen to be mistreated slaves rebell against their theist tormentors, the riot may not have anything to do with religion.
Belz...
Fiend God
True. But there is a line between wondering if it has something to do with it and CLAIMING that it does.
BPSCG said:
I'll have to go with Orwell on this: making racist comments doesn't give the impression that one is rational.
Flo
Illuminator
For some on this forum, everything is excusable when it comes to Muslims and the French.
