Whats all this intercultural adoption crap ?

Dixie said:
Me and Trent don't hang out, sorry. I know him from my days with the newspaper in Mississippi, and I've covered a few of his campaigns.
Click to expand...

You know him, but you haven't hung out with him? From what you've described, you don't "Know" him. You "Know of him". I'm going to call you on your bull shit earlier.

"I have known the man personally for years"

If you "know" someone personally, that indicates that you've spent time with them and/or have had some time of personal exchanges.

Dixie said:
For C. Mason Weaver's definition of "Plantation Democrats" you'll have to buy the book, it is too complicated to articulate here,
Click to expand...

If you are going to be so emboldened as to call someone a plantation pinhead, you should be able to back it up with facts. I'll give you the benefit of the dout and assume you have more facts other than the fact that I'm black......because ya know....that would be racist.

And No... I didn't say that in the context presented. It is a deliberate manipulation of the words, to convey that message, but that was not what I said at all. In order to try and illustrate how someones view was flawed, I used an absurd example, which Maine distorted for his own purposes. I have never held that viewpoint, and I certainly agree that people who don't want to do business with black people, are probably racist at heart. Just like, I think people who don't want to support Israel, are probably anti-Semetic at heart.
Click to expand...

If you say so.
 
Damocles said:
It is, however, taken out of context where he was using it as an absurd example.
Click to expand...

an absurd example of what? What can that possibly mean other than what it, on it's face, actually means?

And I suppose when he was saying that the slanderous lies of toby and michaelK concerning my having anally raped my own son were quite credible, I am somehow taking THAT out of context as well?
 
Oh my....
I had to wonder how that could have been taken out of context. If I remember correctly when I read the post long ago, it could only have meant what it says.
 
uscitizen said:
Oh my....
I had to wonder how that could have been taken out of context. If I remember correctly when I read the post long ago, it could only have meant what it says.
Click to expand...

Let me explain how, since you don't seem to understand.

In a thread regarding Israel, someone (beefy, i think) said that they didn't think opposing US/Israeli policy meant you were anti-Jew. In order to illustrate how his viewpoint was inferior, I made a comparative analogy. I know those are tough words for you, but it means that I mirrored his viewpoint in a different light, through my own person. My reply was, that he held the viewpoint, not myself. Just as, someone could say they don't support Israel policy doesn't mean they are anti-Jew, someone could also use the very same logical viewpoint and say... the quote maine has posted.

When I posted this, it was not a statement of my personal views, it was actually arguing the exact opposite. The quote posted by Maine was part of an absurd analogy that I drew for Beefy, to demonstrate his flawed logic and view. I fully understood and knew that it sounded completely and arrogantly racist, that was the whole fucking point of phrasing it that way! It was deliberately taken out of context and used as a sig by someone who lacks any moral or ethical character, in my opinion.
 
and when you suggested that toby and mikey were totally credible posters when they suggested that I had fucked my son in the ass...... that was some absurd analogy too, I suppose that meant something entirely different than what it said - that you found their slanderous statements about me to be totally credible.... and do I need to go back and dig up how many other times your implied and inferred and used innuendo to continue to make that slanderous accusation over and over again, you worthless fuck?????

you are a slanderous racist fuckstick.... who writes sickass love poetry to your own daughter who you thought so little of that she had to go looking for YOU on the internet after more than a decade......

rot in hell you fucking asshole.
 
uscitizen said:
that is not the way I remember reading it Dix. sorry no cigar.
Click to expand...

Well, I would go find the actual thread, but since it has been big mouth's signature for the past 3 months, all that comes up is threads he has posted to. I really don't give a fuck what you think you read, I know what I said, and I know the context in which I said it. And I wouldn't accept a cigar from a Democrat anyway, no telling where it might have been!
 
uscitizen said:
I am sort of thinking it was on the other board.
Click to expand...


No, it was on this board. It was when Israel started bombing Lebanon, because the debate was about Israel policy. Ironically, the point I was making with the example, was the exact opposite of the point protrayed by using the quote out of context.
 
Its still a bad analogy. Not supporting a State's actions is not paramount to blatenly discriminating against individuals simply for the color of their skin. There are several reason as to why is a bad parallel:

One is based on actions, the other is based on ethnicity.
One is based on a state, the other is singling out individuals.
You glossed over a big a slash US/Israel policy. By your analogy, you infer that you're also anti-american.
 
LadyT said:
Its still a bad analogy. Not supporting a State's actions is not paramount to blatenly discriminating against individuals simply for the color of their skin. There are several reason as to why is a bad parallel:

One is based on actions, the other is based on ethnicity.
One is based on a state, the other is singling out individuals.
You glossed over a big a slash US/Israel policy. By your analogy, you infer that you're also anti-american.
Click to expand...


Whether it was a bad analogy or not, has nothing to do with how it was used as a comparative analogy. Whether you agree or disagree with the analogy, or the point, has nothing to do with how it was presented and how it is being lied about now.

The very same logical viewpoint is illustrated in both examples, and in both examples, it is difficult to not find prejudice, bigotry, and racism, as a motivating factor. The comparative analogy was used, and then misconstrued into a false statement of fact, as if that was what I had said, when it clearly wasn't. This is about as dishonest and unethical as it gets, but that should surprise no one, when you consider who did it.
 
You glossed over a big a slash US/Israel policy. By your analogy, you infer that you're also anti-american.

No, I think you are misunderstanding something. I am in favor of US/Israel policy, I was arguing against someone who opposed it.
 
Dixie said:
You glossed over a big a slash US/Israel policy. By your analogy, you infer that you're also anti-american.

No, I think you are misunderstanding something. I am in favor of US/Israel policy, I was arguing against someone who opposed it.
Click to expand...

that's my point. I oppose a lot of US's and Israel's foreign policy. Since you imply that I am anti-semetic, I must hate American's too.
 
LadyT said:
that's my point. I oppose a lot of US's and Israel's foreign policy. Since you imply that I am anti-semetic, I must hate American's too.
Click to expand...

Look, what I stated was really quite simple. You can say that you oppose US foreign policy regarding Israel, but you aren't anti-semetic... it's the same as saying, you don't do business with blacks, but you aren't racist. I'm sure a case can be made for either of these positions, but the inherent perception would be, if you don't support US/Israel policy, you are probably an anti-semite, and if you don't do business with blacks, you are probably racist.
 
why would the presumption be made that being against a certain foreign policy of America regarding Israel would mean that you were anti-semitic?

That is ridiculous on its face.

I happen to be very pro-Israel...but I think that America's policy regarding Israel and the palestinian problem is all wrong. YOur presumption is idiotic....as is most of your thinking.

What you know about the middle east could fit in a coffee cup and there would still be room for a cup of coffee.
 
maineman said:
an absurd example of what? What can that possibly mean other than what it, on it's face, actually means?

And I suppose when he was saying that the slanderous lies of toby and michaelK concerning my having anally raped my own son were quite credible, I am somehow taking THAT out of context as well?
Click to expand...
Hence the reason I stated "out of context". I do remember it being used as an absurd example, not as a statement of personal belief.
 
Damocles said:
Hence the reason I stated "out of context". I do remember it being used as an absurd example, not as a statement of personal belief.
Click to expand...

which instance? the statement about not doing business with blacks or the statement that he found mikey and toby's slanderous and profoundly insulting accounts of my anal rape of my own son to be totally credible?

which one of those have I taken "out of context"?
 
maineman said:
which instance? the statement about not doing business with blacks or the statement that he found mikey and toby's slanderous and profoundly insulting accounts of my anal rape of my own son to be totally credible?

which one of those have I taken "out of context"?
Click to expand...

Both.

In both cases, the statements were made as analogy, to prove a point. "Credible" is a subjective term we apply, based on our personal views. What you find credible, I may not, and visa versa. Just as you can claim AP is credible, I can claim Toby and Mikey are credible, it's a matter of personal perception, and nothing more. There is no defined list of people and things that are "credible" and things that aren't, it's a subjective label we apply, based on our own personal viewpoint.

The event you continue to have your panties in a wad about, was a conversation where I was making much the same kind of analogy as the misconstrued sig line. We were discussing the AP report, that US service men had committed atrocities, and you continued to infer the charges were true, without any evidence other than the reports from "credible" sources. I merely posed the question of whether it would be fair to judge you, based on the "credible reports" about your pedophilia alone, without you having a chance to defend yourself, as this was the situation with the troops. All I did, was apply your same logic and reasoning, to the "reports" I had heard about you, and you did not like that one bit. Sorry, but the point stands, and I don't owe you an apology for making it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top