You seem to be working hard to misunderstand me.
No not at all.
I'll put it this way, I expect that even morons in the Klan would know better than to kill someone.
Strange logic, but to each his own.
The Klu Klux Klan with a very storied documented history of violence towards African Americans
and you would find it a surprise if they killed an African American? Again I just do not find it
credible and think you just can not admit you made a mistake. But hey, I can accept that.
You're saying I'm wrong, but you're not objecting. Uh-huh.
Exactly, I am stating a fact.
Anyway, you're refusing to admit the obvious. And I'm glad you know what your words mean, but neither Henny nor myself have trouble with basic reading comprehension. And no, we do not have to assume what your meaning is. We can read and make conclusions based on what you say and how you say it.
You can make conclusions about my meaning, buy they are assumptions and could be wrong.
On the other hand I know exactly what my thoughts/intentions/and point was and there is no way you could know that better than me. I know exactly what my point was and another human being can only make an assumption with that little of information.
If we got the wrong impression, perhaps you did a poor job of communicating.
Or perhaps it was not a poor job and you just don't like what I said.
Uh, no. Again, no one is telling you what to say. Disagreeing with you does not in any fashion equal trying to control you.
Indirectly it does. It should be phrased this way or you may be called a supporter of crime or called a bigot.
In other words you must make a point of condemnation or you are a bigot or crime supporter.
Which is totally false and is not a logical conclusion, but a leap of faith not based on facts.
Um, no. No one said a thing about what you can or cannot say, except you.
See above. (this way or else bigot/condone crime, which is non-sense)
You, on the other hand, seem to be insisting that if others misunderstand your post, they have made bigoted assumptions,
Yes that is exactly what I insist.
If they call me a bigot or insinuate I support crime before they fully question me for more details about a post they don't fully
understand, then yes I see them as bigots rushing to a conclusion to pigeon-hole someone for a post they don't approve of.
If they do question me and I answer that the crime should be punished to the full extent and then they imply "well you shoulda
put that in your first post", well that is wrong. Because I should not have put that in my first post because that is not the point
I wished to make at that time. And I am not a bigot or a supporter of crime because I chose to make another point than what you
or Henny expect.
capitalizing the "ass" part of the word to get in a little indirect name calling.
Oh yes, one of my favorite professors always said to his students "ASSuming" too much is going to many times
make an ASS out of you.
And pointing out how your post could have been misunderstood is not an attempt to control you or dictate what you must say. It's merely pointing out that a misunderstanding was not unreasonable. Yes, I know, you think it was. All the "rules" seem to be coming from your end of the conversation.
See above.
Here's a clue: 'could' does not mean 'must'. A suggestion is not a demand.
Yes it is an "indirect demand" or warning when it is followed with calling me/implying I am a crime supporter or a bigot.
Well, let's just say Ron Paul isn't exactly Michael Moore's political ally.
Well duh.
But Ron Paul and Michael Moore have said similar things about Iraq and that was the subject of my analogy.
QuSo, you've already decided what sort of person will misunderstand you? And you're complaining about other people making assumptions about you?
Yes it is obvious when they call you a bigot before they even attempt to undertand the point you are making.
It's called rush to judgement.
Physician, heal thyself.
But I am not sick. I did not start by calling anyone a bigot.
So now you know what she thought? How does that work?
Well when someone calls you a bigot, thats how it works.
To say it indicates something does not mean it is equal to that thing.
I can see I have to be extremely careful in communicating with you.
Well yes thats probably true if I have the time when I am called/implied to be a bigot
or you could just not communicate. But you won't do that, you enjoy it too much, I can already tell.
Or there could simply be a misunderstanding.
Yes and maybe ask about that misunderstanding and have some dialogue before calling the person a bigot
or crime supporter? Don't ya think that would make a bit more sense?
Particularly in light of your apparent insistence that misunderstanding you is the same as being intolerant of your opinion.
No that is not all true.
I am insisting that if there is a misunderstanding or unsure about intentions it may be best to question or have a short
dialogue with the person before calling them a bigot or a supporter of crime. Again, don't ya think that is a better approach?
Not at all. I speak plainly and straightforwardly. Of course, I do allow that synonyms can actually have different meanings, but that is not tricky. That's just basic English.
Thats funny.
But Ok.
But from the lengths of our give and takes I think it is very obvious we are both not one to let details "slide".
Yes, I see now that any possible misunderstanding of what you mean is purely the fault of the reader. Obviously anyone who misunderstood your post is a close-minded bigot who wants to control your speech. (Not really, that was just me being sarcastic.)
Again, the misunderstanding is ok, it is the bigot reference that is wrong before any investigative dialogue takes place.
Well, that would be your problem, not mine.
No it's not a problem, it's my opinion.
I have no reason to lie about it.
Yes you do.
IMO, you don't want to admit you are trying to defend an obvious ridiculous statement because you made a mistake.
It's spelled PRIDE.
I happen to rather like that I don't always assume the worst of others, including you.
That would not be always assuming the worst.
But if a story came on CNN tonight that the Klan had killed an African American what % of the population would be very surprised?
Knowing the history of the Klan and their hatred of African Americans in my mind it is ridiculous to say it would be a surprise.
But we can make everything a "define is" situation I suppose.
Ridiculous, but to be expetced.
I suppose we could spend great length discussing "define surprise" or "level of surprise".
Bringing it down to people I know is because I don't frequently get cancer news about people I do not know. They don't report each case on the news. At least not where I live. Maybe they do where you live.
No but by using an analogy that is not a correct analogy it gives a false conclusion/impression.
In your analogy you say you would be surprised if someone you knew got cancer.
But I doubt you would be surprised that people get cancer.
And it is the same with the Klan story.
Yes you would probably be surprised if an African American you knew was killed by the Klan.
But that is very different than saying your would surprised if an African American was killed by the Klan.
It was a false analogy.
Anyway, the point of the analogy is that knowing something frequently occurs does not mean I expect it to happen.
I don't expect a car accident to happen on my way home today, but I certainly would not be surprised to see one.
And frankly, in recent years, the K.K.K. does not kill African-Americans regularly. So just because I know that the K.K.K. hates African-Americans does not mean I expect them to start killing African-Americans.
Because the Klan does not regularly kill African Americans does not mean it would be a surprise to hear they did especially in light of their violent history and hatred towards African Americans.
And yes, I'd be surprised if they did.
Sorry, I just do not believe that.
Knowing that people are upset about Islamic terrorists does not mean I expect people to vandalize a school.
I don't really expect it to happen on Tues or on Oct 3rd, but I am certainly not surprised it happened or will happen again.
And if the violence continues at current or worse levels from the Islamic world I won't be surprised to see these kinds of activities take on a much, much worse tone. At some point in the future I predict there will be a huge backlash against Mulsims in the US, and it could get very ugly and very out of control. It would be sad, but I won't be surprised to see anger reach those kind of levels. I hope I am wrong.
I tend to expect people to behave better than some of them sometimes do. Maybe that is a fault, but I don't believe it is. I know some people are thieves, but I don't expect people to be thieves. I know some people think vandalism is a good way to express themselves, but I don't expect people to be vandals.
Um, ok
So am I surprised that some people vandalized an Islamic school? Yes, I am.
Well we are never going to agree.
Sadly I think you are going to get a lot of "surprises" in the coming years if the violence from the Muslim world
continues or if American cities come under any kind of major bio/chemical/wmd attacks from Muslims.
