Gosh, since I didn't say that, you had to lie and claim I did.
I guess you must feel guilty or something?
Oh, and yes, it's happened throughout recorded history. Who claimed otherwise?
Beating of Homeless...
- Thread starter bluess
- Start date
Gosh, since I didn't say that, you had to lie and claim I did.
I guess you must feel guilty or something?
Oh, and yes, it's happened throughout recorded history. Who claimed otherwise?
Here we go, another fraudulent post. I didn't mention Bush, you did.
Why did you associate Bush with this horrible crime, anyhow?
This is very, very true. Look at South Africa, Uganda, etc.
Jesus, jj. How do you expect "but I think the present political climate of "might makes right" contributes a great deal to the problem" to be interpreted, especially coming from someone who likes to call the Republicans fascists?
Please. Tell us. What do you mean by "the present political climate"?
Your failure to read clear, simple words is not my problem.
If you (or someone else) wishes to claim they're reading my mind, and that I meant "President Bush" when I said "present political climate", then they should apply for the million dollar prize. I would warn them, however, that they will need a great lot of practice, at best.
So a guy who says things like...
...then says "I think the present political climate of 'might makes right' contributes a great deal to the problem", and feigns SHOCK and INDIGNATION when people can't help but think he is blaming Bush.
OK, jj. Whatever. We'll let the jury decide.
...then says "I think the present political climate of 'might makes right' contributes a great deal to the problem", and feigns SHOCK and INDIGNATION when people can't help but think he is blaming Bush.
OK, jj. Whatever. We'll let the jury decide.
Last edited:
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Argumentum ad populum. Another fallacy hits the streets. You're 0 for 2 today, aren't you?
Once again, I am not responsible for your inability to read what was written.
So, how did I blame Clinton?
Hint, Grams, I didn't.
Didn't say a word about Bush, either.
Seems you guys can't read what somebody writes, rather you have to leap reactively to the attack whenever somebody says anything.
If I said "the sun emits light" I dare say I think you'd try to find a way to argue with that.
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Are you Michael More? No? Then may I introduce you to context?
Did I say you did? No. Then why are you bringing up Bush?
I can read very well. You, on the other hand, read that I somehow wrote you blamed Clinton. Interesting.
Perhaps I should provide more detail:
In Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore -- during conversation with Marily Manson -- suggests that because Clinton was bombing Yugoslavia at the time that it somehow gave kids the idea that shooting up the school was a similar thing.
Then you do not understand the words "present political climate"?
Man, I can't help you.
Yes, let's, my reply is in the CONTEXT of yours, in which you somehow are reminded of Moore by my statements.
Yes, let's deal with context, shall we, next time, Gramps.
jj cannot explain his remarks and who is responsible for the "present political climate" that leads to the beating of homeless people without mentioning Bush and/or the Republicans. That is why he will dodge, weave, duck, and generally weasel out of explaining himself.
Mephisto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2005
- Messages
- 6,064
Maybe the apparent need for religion, political ideals, racial prejudice, money and all those other things that set us above our fellow man, or perhaps just mean-spirited criminality?
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
I think you were vague enough to leave yourself an out.
My interpretation of what you said is that the statement "might makes right" refers to the Bush admin's use of force in dealing with Iraq, and perhaps other policies as well. It seems you feel that these policies, and their influence on the youth of today, contributed a great deal to the beating of this man. No, you did not say that in so many words, but I believe that is what you meant. It is common for people on this board to throw out comments that are clear in meaning, yet vague enough to be retractable if the author deems it necessary. Perhaps this is not one of those times.
I am not familiar enough with your political views to make any assumptions about what you meant other than from what I read in the quoted post.
I noticed you started another thread on how we are misinterpreting your statements in this thread. You must be very important.
ETA: I still have seen no explanation, in either this thread or the "persecution" thread, as to what you actually meant by your statements. You claim that myself and others are misunderstanding your words, so please enlighten us. I'd apologize if I thought I put words in your mouth, I just don't think that I did.
Last edited:
Art Vandelay
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 4,787
No, no, you're not "misinterpreting". It is completely obvious what jj means, and you're deliberately lying about what he said.
And of course, now that he's accused you of being dishonest, absolutely no one else is allowed to accuse him of dishonesty, because that would be "tu quoque".
No, no, you're not "misinterpreting". It is completely obvious what jj means, and you're deliberately lying about what he said.
And of course, now that he's accused you of being dishonest, absolutely no one else is allowed to accuse him of dishonesty, because that would be "tu quoque".
Yeah, yeah, listen to Art, it's relativism all the way.
The words are clear. They have a simple, defined meaning. For those who don't realize it, there are lots of politicians in Washington DC, not just 1.