StroppyChops wrote:Sigh. Let's stop with your inferences about my implications for a moment then. Your interpretation of my intention does not a gospel make, regardless of your conviction in your own eternal rightness.

What specifically is it that you say I 'nodded and winked' at?

That it was ok to generalize about a group, once a threshold of them had been reached.

Breaking down the chain of events:

• Add Jay says: "Maybe we shouldnt let people from muslim nations in so much and collect welfare...so on and so on. I mean that's just me but is my statement too full of racism?"

• I then make my post pointing out why it IS racism: "Is it describing a behaviour or trait based on that ethnic group to all members of the group, derived from the actions/traits of individual members of that group?"

• You then reply to my clarification stating that it oversimplifies: "If only or mainly Elbonians engage in terrorist or hate related activity such as jihad, it is not wrong to say so - however politically correct it might be claimed to be."

Which is not in itself inherently wrong, only in the above context of what you're defending (thus leading to the implications)... because that's not at all what he was doing, however you post was making it look as though it was.

Though even your implication that all terrorists (or even most...) are muslim (which if true I would agree is not racist, until you chose to act on all muslims as if they're terrorists) is rather skewed:

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-al ... e-muslims/

You should be more worried about letting Left Wingers in your country....

OrangeDragon wrote:That it was ok to generalize about a group, once a threshold of them had been reached.

Where did I say that was okay?

Breaking down the chain of events:

• Add Jay says: "Maybe we shouldnt let people from muslim nations in so much and collect welfare...so on and so on. I mean that's just me but is my statement too full of racism?"

• I then make my post pointing out why it IS racism: "Is it describing a behaviour or trait based on that ethnic group to all members of the group, derived from the actions/traits of individual members of that group?"

• You then reply to my clarification stating that it oversimplifies: "If only or mainly Elbonians engage in terrorist or hate related activity such as jihad, it is not wrong to say so - however politically correct it might be claimed to be."

Which is not in itself inherently wrong, only in the above context of what you're defending (thus leading to the implications)... because that's not at all what he was doing, however you post was making it look as though it was.

I wasn't defending his point at all.

I made the point that if only members of Set X engage in a specific activity, then it is not wrong or inappropriate to use phrasing such as " Set X's specific activity" - there is some ambiguity in whether the reader assumes the speaker meant that they hold that all members of Set X engage in the specified activity, OR that the specific activity is demonstrated exclusively by some members of Set X. How you read that ambiguity is often shaded by your bias and perception of the speaker OR the issue. In this case you misread it, and then deliberately stuck to your guns - I have never once, on this forum or the other, seen you even allow for the idea that you just might have been wrong, and I'm confident you'll stay true to form here.

Given your proficiency as a programmer, I refuse to accept that you do not fully grasp the concept of Elbonians.

OrangeDragon wrote:

UKJ wrote:You can let some of us have a valid opinion on issues we are a lot more experienced than you in.

Let me know when you find one,

You're arrogance is breathtaking.

OrangeDragon wrote:

UKJ wrote:You can let some of us have a valid opinion on issues we are a lot more experienced than you in.

Let me know when you find one, especially when it's one you can support without copouts, your own straw men made up of selective quote removal, mass generalizations of a people based on their race/religion, and so on.

And I didn't mass generalize anything. It's you who done that for the whole of Europe, based on what Las Vegas service staff told you.

OrangeDragon wrote: Because by nodding and winking at a thing, you aren't force to come directly out and say the thing... so can backpedal out with such moves.

No, you make childishly simplistic assumptions and straw man aruments, so you can insult your members, and won't back down when proven wrong, so make up " nod and wink" horseshit, or anti OD agendas

Where was the muslim community you lived amongst, so I can google it?


Stroppy sums you up well

StroppyChops wrote:. Your interpretation of my intention does not a gospel make, regardless of your conviction in your own eternal rightness.

According to Canada's 2011 National Household Survey, there were 1,053,945 Muslims in Canada or about 3.2% [1] of the population, making them the second largest religion after Christianity and the fastest growing religion in Canada.[2] In the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), 7.7% of the population is Muslim, making GTA the highest concentration of Muslims in any city in North America.[3] Majority of Muslims in Canada follow Sunni Islam, while a significant minority adheres to Shia branch.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Canada

Just as a report a posted in another thread said. The problems start as the muslim % grows.

So N.Y has Ebola. He was bowling...going to parties....using the subway system.

I love it. Where you?? West Africa? Welcome back good sir....shake my hand and give me a kiss!

That would be Unjust....cant say raciest cause hes white.

Orange were you implying Im from the south and a redneck? Thats showing your bigot ways a bit. By you just saying that tells me what you truly think of people located in the southern areas of America. SMDH!

StroppyChops wrote: I wasn't defending his point at all.

I made the point that if only members of Set X engage in a specific activity, then it is not wrong or inappropriate to use phrasing such as " Set X's specific activity" - there is some ambiguity in whether the reader assumes the speaker meant that they hold that all members of Set X engage in the specified activity, OR that the specific activity is demonstrated exclusively by some members of Set X. How you read that ambiguity is often shaded by your bias and perception of the speaker OR the issue. In this case you misread it, and then deliberately stuck to your guns - I have never once, on this forum or the other, seen you even allow for the idea that you just might have been wrong, and I'm confident you'll stay true to form here.

Given your proficiency as a programmer, I refuse to accept that you do not fully grasp the concept of Elbonians.

I don't see that as ambiguous at all... again, you literally assigned possession of the activity to Set X. Not subsects of Set X. Even in both of your ambiguousness parameters.

And yet, in this case specifically it's none of that. Not all muslims are terrorists, nor are all terrorists muslim, nor are all people from those regions muslim or terrorist.

And people keep holding on to this idea that i can't be corrected or admit when i'm wrong... despite me having done it several times on both forums when it's happening. In fact the last time it was suggested I posted links to where it happened. Just because you've far from convinced me, doesn't mean I'm just refusing to admit I'm wrong... it means your arguments are failing.

OrangeDragon wrote:And yet, in this case specifically it's none of that. Not all muslims are terrorists, nor are all terrorists muslim, nor are all people from those regions muslim or terrorist.

You are so blinkered by your own supposed brilliance you are overlooking the obvious - all jihadists claim to be Muslim. This is an unpalatable truth which does not - before you start shaping the narrative again - infer they ARE Muslims, but it is neither incorrect or inappropriate to say so.

Unfortunately in your internal dialogue you appear to create a list of all possible 'moves' (like an old text-based RPG) the other person in a conversation can make and then you're two steps ahead fighting the troll on the bridge, when the other player went North and you assumed/inferred/got from/mind read that they went South. Sad part is that you then insist they went South, and keep massaging the discussion in the hope that everyone watching your 'game' will eventually understand why you're fighting the troll on the bridge.

And people keep holding on to this idea that i can't be corrected or admit when i'm wrong... [snip] Just because you've far from convinced me, doesn't mean I'm just refusing to admit I'm wrong... it means your arguments are failing.

Sigh. Okay, OD, you're right, I'm wrong - whatever you need. Like many others before me, I've lost the motivation for right-fighting with you.

(Yes, theGeneral, THAT was passive-aggressive. )

Hatchet assault on New York police comes during fears of Islamist attacks
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/24/us/ne ... uspicions/