laughing dog said:
Bomb #20 called them stupid in an argument...
That's a gross failure of reading comprehension on your part. I did not call them stupid. For you to think I did is a rookie mistake. Go get an SAT study guide and try to relearn what you must have known as a college freshman.
You won't do this of course, because you're too arrogant and too hostile to take constructive criticism from me. So don't take my word for it. Go show my question to some other professor and ask her if it means I was calling them stupid.
You presented an implicit argument and within the text of that argument you labeled them as stupid. That doesnt mean you believe they are stupid, but it is what you did.
No, that is not what I did. What I did was ask RS if she was postulating that they're stupid.
Don't be so defensive that you take his words out of the context of your own post.
Take his words out of context? Please. I cut for brevity and for the sake of focus on his false claim about me. If you want to see what quoting out of context looks like, look at LD's post #75, quoted below. What I cut did not alter any reasonable person's understanding of the words "Bomb #20 called them stupid in an argument". In contrast, LD cut "So your theory is what?" from the front of what I wrote, and he cut the question mark from the end. He cut the parts of what I wrote that made it clear I was asking a question about someone else's views, rather than making any claim at all about Trump voters. LD altered my meaning. I did not alter his.
take/quote something out of context
to use only part of something that someone said, so that the original meaning is changed
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/take-quote-something-out-of-context
On what planet do either the words "Bomb #20 explicitly injected the term stupid even though Ravensky did not call them stupid." or the words "even if he does not think they are stupid." in any way change the meaning of "Bomb #20 called them stupid in an argument"? He was doing exactly what my quotation of him made it look like he was doing: he was claiming that I had called them stupid in an argument. Since I didn't change his meaning, it was not an out-of-context quotation. See how it works?
It is a matter of record that you wrote in post #5 “That Trump voters are too stupid to understand that people who have given up looking for work aren't fully human,”. Your partial quote of mine (post #48) omits salient points. The entire post reads
“ Bomb #20 explicitly injected the term stupid even though Ravensky did not call them stupid. Bomb #20 called them stupid in an argument even if he does not think they are stupid. ".
See above. As I explained to Don, the parts of your post I omitted were not salient points with respect to forming a correct understanding of what you meant by the part I replied to. That they were salient with respect to whatever larger point you were making in no way makes what I wrote an out-of-context quote -- in marked contrast to your present partial quote of me, which completely alters the meaning of what I wrote.
So your response is either a function of
1) gross intellectually dishonesty,
2) a gross failure of reading comprehension, or
3) meltdown-induced hysteria.
Frankly, given your posting history, I’d chose 3 but your mileage may differ.
That is yet another your long chain of false accusations against me that you keep making with reckless disregard for the truth. You have no basis in logic for supposing that either the words "Bomb #20 explicitly injected the term stupid even though Ravensky did not call them stupid." or the words "even if he does not think they are stupid." in any way change the meaning of "Bomb #20 called them stupid in an argument". It's not as though that context changes a claim into a question. You are therefore committing a false trilemma fallacy. The correct answer is that my response is a function of 4) my being perfectly fair to you.
For you to accuse me of dishonesty, misunderstanding or hysteria is exactly as unreasonable as if I were to accuse you of dishonesty, misunderstanding or hysteria on the grounds that your post #27 omitted one of my salient points when you partially quoted my post #12. You quite sensibly cut post #12 for brevity and focus, the same reasons I cut yours.
You won't do this of course, because you're too arrogant and too hostile to take constructive criticism from me. So don't take my word for it. Go show my question to some other professor and ask her if it means I was calling them stupid.
You wrote what you wrote. I did show it to a few other professors and they agree with me.
What did you show those professors? The above sentence fragment, thereby hiding from them the fact that it was a question about someone else's views?
RavenSky said:
So you went on and on and on, yet failed to show that anyone other than Bomb #20 brought the characterization of Trump supporters as "stupid" into this thread. So I stand vindicated in my original statement, and you can drop your useless misdirected finger wagging now. It is tiresome.
No, you did not stand vindicated. You claimed Bomb#20 called them "stupid". That is false.
It is not only true, but it is still there and available for everyone to see. You need to stop your derail before you look even sillier than you already do.
If you think it's a derail, feel free not to respond further; but you are falsely accusing AM. The derail is not his. It's yours. You are the one who started this whole side topic, back in post #25.
As for whether your claim that I called them stupid was true, no it was not. Yes, I brought the characterization into the thread, but that's irrelevant since what I wrote was a question about your views, not an assertion about Trump voters. Let me see if I can explain this to you in terms you are more likely to understand. Here, I'll give you an example, to show you what it looks like when somebody calls somebody stupid.
A fluent adult English speaker who sincerely believes that the circumstance that person P was the one who explicitly injected the term X constitutes a good reason to think "So your theory is what? That persons Q are X?" qualifies as an example of person P saying persons Q are X is stupid.
See? That is what a claim that somebody is stupid looks like.
Build the Wall; Repeal Obamacare; Control Immigration; Lower Corporate Taxes; No TPP. You may not like his policy positions, but to say he didn't discuss policy is just partisan dross.
then Trausti needs to take it up with WhichPhilosophy, not me 
