laughing dog
Contributor
An ironic diatribe caused from pointing out that you could have been clearer and her response was not a "straw man".My written words in no way suggested "only". No qualification is required to denote something less than "only" since that is the implied meaning of the statement in the absence of a qualification that one is referring to the extreme and rare case of "only". When someone says "I like chocolate ice cream", do you infer that this is the only thing in the universe that the person likes and do infer that they are claiming that they are the only person in the universe that likes it? Of course not, no person capable of basic language comprehension would do that. "Only" could added to almost any utterance and to every verb and every noun in every utterance. Yet, no one does this and so people very rarely add a qualifier to clarify that "only" was not meant.
Thus, either you are one of the only people in existence that interprets the absence of "only" as meaning "only" and thus you constantly misrepresent what everyone speaking to you means, or your just pretending that its reasonable to interpret it this way because it serves your strawman-building rhetorical style.
For some reason, you left out the relevant part of the sentence (in bold italics) "Why I would have to quote "tons of examples" (a standard I have no idea how to measure, since words have no weight) that AA attributes to them" which might explain your misrepresentation of the meaning. I see no reason to limit examples of "Anything but Racism" to such a narrow field. I find it interesting you felt the need to personalize the issue.Because you claimed her OP accurately characterized arguments that are "pervasive" and made by people on these boards.
No, I did not. You should be able to point something I actually wrote to support your claim.And you defended the reasonableness of her OP as an attempt to reference arguments being made in the other current threads.
That is also a misreading of my post (see above).Your making claims, yet you cannot grasp why you would be asked to support them with evidence. Gee, how surprising.
Given your entire response, I am surprised you recognized a correct assertion.Wow, you almost accidentally made a correct assertion.
Taking partial statements out of context is conducive to misreading and misrepresentation. In the context of the post it meant that no one was accusing anyone in particular of the "Anything but Racism" argument. It does not mean that no individual has made the argument.It is "Independent of any individual", in the sense that no individual has made the argument that she and you are falsely claiming people make frequently, yet cannot show a single example of or even realize why you should need to.
Another misrepresentation. Saying something is an outgrowth of another thread does not necessarily mean that it is a criticism of anyone in particular. It may very well mean that the other thread brought this topic to mind and rather than derail the original thread, another one was started.It is obvious to all honest and reasonable observers that the OP is attempting to criticize arguments by people on this board, and specifically arguments in the Brown shooting thread. She admitted as much, and just hours before in that other thread had misrepresented my argument in just this way. The fact that she cannot be bothered to even build her own strawman fallacies and relies on some other ideologue who is equally disinterested in reasoned argument doesn't change that.
Yet another misrepresentation. It is clear my response was specific to your claim In order to provide support for the underlined part, I would have to be able to accurately mind read. No one can.IOW, you are admitting that whenever you give your opinion on a question of fact, it is clear that you have zero support for that position.
Yes, my approach does differ from those who believe they can read minds and who consistently misrepresent the content of posts of others.Most of us here sort of prefer to have rational support for our opinions, because that is what these boards are kinda about, but I guess its good that at least aware of how your approach differs.
Were you aware that is a simultaneous denial and affirmation?It isn't addressed to me. If she wanted to address me, she wouldn't have just responded to my requests in the other thread that she show evidence for her claim that I dismiss the very existence of racism and refuse to acknowledge that it ever has an impact on the world. It not addressed to me, but given that she had just made the same strawman mischaracterization of my argument in that thread, it is a clear attempt to criticize my and other efforts to merely ask for evidence to support claims of racism in specific situations by criticizing strawman versions of those arguments as made by a fictional person who cannot possibly defend themselves (because a fictional person is the only kind of person that can't dismantle such fallacious and absurd misrepresentations).