Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Moderators: Mick, TheGingerMan

Forum rules
IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby BigJohn » 17 Apr 2012, 13:23

I understood your statement very well: you were attempting to deflect criticism about the TM's inaccurate portrayal of OWS as a bunch of black-clad vandalizing extremists by invoking statements on other threads about the Tea Party, which I did not make or support.
Forumosan avatar
BigJohn
National Security Advisor (guójiā ānquán gùwèn)
National Security Advisor (guójiā ānquán gùwèn)
 
Posts: 4560
ORIGINAL POSTER
Joined: 25 Jun 2005, 01:45
Location: Lost in time, lost in space...and meaning
97 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby Tigerman » 17 Apr 2012, 13:34

BigJohn wrote:I understood your statement very well:


No. You didn't. :)

BigJohn wrote:you were attempting to deflect criticism about the TM's inaccurate portrayal of OWS as a bunch of black-clad vandalizing extremists by invoking statements on other threads about the Tea Party...


No. I wasn't.

BigJohn wrote:...which I did not make or support.


Neither did you criticize them. And that was part of my point. You were quick to jump on what you perceived to be a misrepresentation of OWS, but, have remained completely silent regarding the many nearly identical misrepresentations of the Tea Party.

The other part of my point was basically in agreement with you, i.e., that the black-clad anarchists are not representative of the average OWS protester. I simply made that point by analogizing that misrepresentation to the frequent misrepresentation of the Tea Party as a bunch of avid racists.
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Forumosan avatar
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17257
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
221 Recommends(s)
135 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby BigJohn » 17 Apr 2012, 15:07

Tigerman wrote:
BigJohn wrote:I understood your statement very well:

Yes, I did understand your statement. It was not the meaning of it alone that I objected to, but the way you contextualized my statement.

And why would I need to comment on the Tea Party in a thread on OWS? You are assuming some sort of obligation to balance one's posts based on other people's political affiliation. I am not the editorial department of a newspaper. I am a poster reacting to various influence, one of which is mood, how busy I am (quite) and random desires. There are many things written on the Flob that I disagree with but ignore, for one reason or another.

TC's pic of black clad anarchists calling them OWS was absurd. I merely pointed that out.

Your reaction to my statement, with the assumption that I need to balance it by participating in other threads, is also absurd.
Forumosan avatar
BigJohn
National Security Advisor (guójiā ānquán gùwèn)
National Security Advisor (guójiā ānquán gùwèn)
 
Posts: 4560
ORIGINAL POSTER
Joined: 25 Jun 2005, 01:45
Location: Lost in time, lost in space...and meaning
97 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby TainanCowboy » 17 Apr 2012, 15:42

BJ -

Click the fucking link. Its the picture used with the article - NOT my picture...Capish?
"Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --- "Caesar and Cleopatra"...G.B. Shaw
-----
Kid Rock - Born Free
-----
"The big sisters are usually hot, but the dads smell of alcohol and tobacco....and have dirty feet with dead toe nails in blue slippers. "...Bob_Honest on "The Culture"
------
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
------
Isaiah 40:31
Forumosan avatar
TainanCowboy
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 16234
Joined: 18 Jun 2004, 17:50
Location: Tainan - The Original Taiwan
103 Recommends(s)
49 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby cfimages » 17 Apr 2012, 15:50

TainanCowboy wrote:BJ -

Click the fucking link. Its the picture used with the article - NOT my picture...Capish?


Reading the article makes no difference. It is also stating that OWS is represented by anarchists.
Forumosan avatar
cfimages
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
 
Posts: 8568
Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 15:39
Location: Across from the other side of the road
152 Recommends(s)
164 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby Tigerman » 17 Apr 2012, 15:50

BigJohn wrote:Yes, I did understand your statement.


Its obvious that you didn't.

BigJohn wrote:It was not the meaning of it alone that I objected to, but the way you contextualized my statement.


I just pointed out the obvious.

BigJohn wrote:And why would I need to comment on the Tea Party in a thread on OWS?


You obviously do not need to.

BigJohn wrote:You are assuming some sort of obligation to balance one's posts based on other people's political affiliation.


Not at all. Just making an observation. An obvious one, at that.

BigJohn wrote:I am not the editorial department of a newspaper. I am a poster reacting to various influence, one of which is mood, how busy I am (quite) and random desires. There are many things written on the Flob that I disagree with but ignore, for one reason or another.


Obviously! :lol:

BigJohn wrote:TC's pic of black clad anarchists calling them OWS was absurd. I merely pointed that out.


Yes. You did.

BigJohn wrote:Your reaction to my statement, with the assumption that I need to balance it by participating in other threads, is also absurd.


I made no such assumption. I merely pointed out that you have not been balanced in your comments. :lol: Nothing absurd about that observation.
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Forumosan avatar
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17257
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
221 Recommends(s)
135 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby BigJohn » 17 Apr 2012, 22:02

Of course I understood your point TM, it was very simple.

But I was not talking or even thinking about the Tea Party. Can you understand that point? Either way, I don't care.

I was simply making a small but important point about the way TM's post came across. Yes, I clicked the link TM and read the article. Interesting comments to it at the bottom of the page BTW. A very erudite crowd. :D

TM: if you want to post about the Tea Party, go ahead. I was not, so please don't try to contextualize me on that one. Once again, I have rarely commented on them, so don't try to make me part of your context or endless right versus left warfare on the flob.

Once again, the insinuation that someone I should have commented on them is absurd.
Forumosan avatar
BigJohn
National Security Advisor (guójiā ānquán gùwèn)
National Security Advisor (guójiā ānquán gùwèn)
 
Posts: 4560
ORIGINAL POSTER
Joined: 25 Jun 2005, 01:45
Location: Lost in time, lost in space...and meaning
97 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby jdsmith » 17 Apr 2012, 22:10

Once again, the insinuation that someone I should have commented on them is absurd.

I disagree. When one comments frequently on the OWS gang and doesn't comment on the TP gang, when both groups are so similar, it seems that one is simply choosing not to connect the dots, or to connect them but would rather not talk about them...kind of like when people bash Bush for being a liar and ignore extensively researched posts about Obama's lies. Stinks of gross disingenuous. :thumbsdown:
Your warning level: [1]
Forumosan avatar
jdsmith
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 14855
Joined: 05 Jan 2005, 10:40
Location: Always.
56 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby Tigerman » 17 Apr 2012, 22:55

BigJohn wrote:Of course I understood your point TM, it was very simple.


I don't think you did.

BigJohn wrote:But I was not talking or even thinking about the Tea Party. Can you understand that point? Either way, I don't care.


Yes. That's obvious.

BigJohn wrote:I was simply making a small but important point about the way TM's post came across. Yes, I clicked the link TM and read the article.


TC's. Not mine.

BigJohn wrote:TM: if you want to post about the Tea Party, go ahead. I was not, so please don't try to contextualize me on that one. Once again, I have rarely commented on them, so don't try to make me part of your context or endless right versus left warfare on the flob.


Not my context. But, by choosing repeatedly to comment on one but never on the other, you are, in fact, part of that context. :lol:

BigJohn wrote:Once again, the insinuation that someone I should have commented on them is absurd.


I've made no such insinuation. Just an observation. :cool:
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Forumosan avatar
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17257
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
221 Recommends(s)
135 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL

Postby BigJohn » 18 Apr 2012, 02:04

No, TM. You are the one making my views on TC's lame post part of something else. As I said earlier, there is no necessity for posters to allocate their comments in some sort of even way. Are you suggesting I should defend the Tea Party before I can attack a daft post about OWS? That is dafter than either movement. Leave it alone: you are becoming boring.

The point I made is that those black clad anarchists do not represent OWS. If you want to post about what does or does not represent the Tea Party, go ahead. But leave me out of it.
Forumosan avatar
BigJohn
National Security Advisor (guójiā ānquán gùwèn)
National Security Advisor (guójiā ānquán gùwèn)
 
Posts: 4560
ORIGINAL POSTER
Joined: 25 Jun 2005, 01:45
Location: Lost in time, lost in space...and meaning
97 Recognized(s)

6000

PreviousNext




 
 
 x

Return to International Politics



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 1 visitor

The future has a way of arriving unannounced -- GEORGE F WILL