These aren't people.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Xmo1, May 17, 2018.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    In all seriousness, that was not meant to be yelling. My two posts were originally one rather long post, and I wanted the red part to be read as 'if you just scan this, and get nothing else from this post, get this part'. Upon review, I saw it was two distinct ideas, so broke it into two separate posts, but neglected to reduce the font size.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Yup. It's an interpretation of this article. You don't get to claim that it's the default. You can argue it is, but to claim it is would be begging the question.

    Evidence and argument provided. Saying 'I disagree' doesn't make it go away.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    So you want a "safe" place in Bothell for MS-13 animals, just because they used to be human? Bullshit. Total bullshit.
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

  9. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Putting lipstick on the pig just makes the bacon taste funny. Have you ever been outside your comfort zone, if I can use that execrable term here? You ever walked where whiteness needs an escort, or a hogleg?

    Gangsters aren't fucking human. For less than a quarter per varmint, you can be shut of them. Be aghast, and then just step back and shut the hell up while grownups clean your sandbox.
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I did. So did others. Among those arguments you can find a complete refutation of this:
    You provided not one single item of evidence against the default interpretation (I even provided you with examples of what you would need, which you have ignored so far)
    and your only argument was that Trump's once naming MS-13 specifically as "animals" somehow proved that he wasn't using them as representative of illegal brown skin immigrants then or this time as he always - always - has before. Which is a very silly attempt at argument, eh? You seem to have overlooked the entire matter under discussion in the thread.
    And gangsters represent brown skin illegal immigrants - we have the President himself justifying his immigration policies on that basis.

    Or are you claiming that you can sort the brown skin gangsters from the brown skin illegals in general - you have a scope with mind reading powers on that rifle?

    As long as we are discussing basic humanity - ICE has lost between 1500 and 2000 of the brown skin children it separated from their parents. "Lost" as in has no idea where they are or what's happening to them, and it can't find them, and it can't explain how or why they disappeared or where they went or with whom.
    Add in the estimated percentages of the brown skin children ICE has removed from their brown skin family's care and officially on record handed over to what seems to have been human traffickers and child abusers;
    add in the current establishment of holding camps on military bases for the thousands of brown skin children ICE has and plans to have separated from their brown skin parents;
    and we can ask the following question:

    Who is less human, the members of MS-13 or ICE? Which organization treats brown skin children worse?
    Last edited: May 28, 2018
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    This is a deliberate falsehood. You not liking the evidence is not the same as me not providing it. Argue in good faith.

    I indeed provided the evidence (the actual quote, both as text and as video) that is relevant to the subject of this thread. In this article his answer was in the context of MS-13. That is far more specific and explicit and compelling than any argument you have put forth.

    "There could be an MS-13 gang member that I know about. If they don't meet a certain threshold, I cannot tell ICE about them," Mims said.

    "We have people coming into the country or trying to come in, we're stopping a lot of them, but we're taking people out of the country. You wouldn't believe how bad these people are," Trump responded. "These aren't people. These are animals."

    While I certainly grant that Trump has no respect for undocumented immigrants, and has a history of saying so, this article (the topic of this thread) is a poor example of that, because his words have been taken out of context of the question being asked.

    And there are plenty of people out there who agree, and are speaking out. Thus, nuts to your 'default' argument.

    It is not your place to tell me what I would need. You are not the chair of this discussion.

    What I need is the context of the very quote in-question. I have provided the context - the question in which this answer was made.

    You may disagree; you may say there is another context, and that's fine, but then you shoot yourself in the foot:

    Trying to reframe the discussion as if your answer is the default is begging the question. It is a logical fallacy. You are essentially asserting that 'my view is default' and your argument is that 'my view is default'.

    You, Iceaura, are attempting to bully your way to a win. You are not arguing the subject anymore, you are trying to reframe the debate as if you have some sort of case as a "default" position to start. You do not. You can repeat it all you want, it's not only false, it's not arguing in good faith.

    I've put
    - the article that is this topic of discussion
    - in the context in which it was spoken
    - by the speaker.
    Last edited: May 28, 2018
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  12. geordief Registered Senior Member

    Say you are right and the s.c. pres is indeed referring to this subset of immigrants , are you confident of his bona fides? (perhaps the answer is obvious)

    May this be an example of dog whistle politics where he knows full well that we will fill in the blank spaces?

    Is this not how some politicians operate (eg Farage) ("I am only saying what you are thinking")

    Is "context" like a piece of string**? (and should we fight our battles on the most advantageous ground?)

    ** you can grasp it at the end or towards the middle.
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Of course it is. Everyone knows what he means. But saying it that way allows his supporters to say "no, what he REALLY means is . . ."
  14. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    • Please do not flame other members
    Mara Salvatrucha, obviously, you fucking troll.

    You are the one equating skin color with some perceived problem with ICE. Talk to someone that doesn't sit in a chair all day solving the world's problems remotely.

    Oh, wait. That's you. Yet your fucking blather hasn't fixed anything, has it?
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    And -as you have been repeatedly informed - that is not evidence for your argument. That was repetition of the events being discussed. The fact that you don't understand the issue is demonstrated, but nothing more.
    They were not taken out of context. They (and the question itself) were put into context. Being put into context is the opposite of being taken out of context.
    That's not the context, of course. That's you attempting to isolate the exchange from all context. And it didn't work even for your attempt, because Trump rambled too much - you had to go find another quote, from a different Trump speechify, even for that.

    You are the poster attempting to take Trump's remarks - the entire article, for that matter - out of context. I am objecting to that misleading approach, and especially to any criticism of media folks for reporting informatively on what Trump actually says and means.
    Trump has a consistent history of speaking of rapists, drug smugglers, gang members, and so forth, as if they represented illegal brown skin immigrants in general. That was another example of him doing that. Reporting on his doing that, when he does it again, is perfectly ok. The sensational media got the story right.
    No "answer" of mine is involved.
    Reminding you of the context obtaining, when you yourself have been emphasizing the matter of context, begs no questions.

    If you don't like my claim of default from context, you have been presented with the opportunity to argue against my claim of default from context, even helpful suggestions as to how one would go about that (because you appear lost) - so far, crickets. Instead, you continue to repost the Trump quotes that have been supporting my description of his standard tactics - why?
    Last edited: May 28, 2018
  16. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Like that "reporter" that interviewed Jordan Peterson for Sky News?

    "So you're saying.." Is what I choose to misinterpret..

    "What you really mean is..." Is what I choose to say that you said, for no greater purpose than to crap in the river and avoid conversation.

    Brilliant. Keep on like that...
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    I'm not saying Trump is innocent; I am decrying yellow journalism.

    Let's consider a hypothetical. If Trump had been more explicit, defining the context in his answer, say, thus:

    "We have these MS-13 gangsters coming into the country or trying to come in, we're stopping a lot of them, but we're taking people out of the country. You wouldn't believe how bad these human smugglers are. These aren't people. These are animals."

    In this example, Trump is condemning hardened human smuggling gangsters as animals. Would this story have made as big a splash?

    It wouldn't have. These smugglers are bad people.

    By removing that context, the article leads us to believe that Trump actually called all undocumented immigrants animals (i.e. explicitly).

    And he may well have meant that. But it's not the journalist's job to put those words in Trump's mouth. They didn't have to do anything more than provide the context of Trump's answer. How hard could it be?

    The guy is such a dolt that journalists could give him every benefit of the doubt and he'd still come off smelling of poop. Why get poop on your hands by manipulating the story to make a headline?
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    What are you talking about?
    My entire point is that Trump's words are in a context that was not provided in the article. All I've done is point out the context - the wording of the question to which Trump was responding.

    I did this is post #2 by showing the full exchange.

    That context is objective. It is the context of the actual exchange of the two people who are doing the talking. There is no possible confusion about what the questioner and the answerer actually said.

    You are arguing your stance of what is the context. That is not objective. That is your argument, here.

    That is editorializing. They are not mind readers.
    I'm not suggesting it's false, simply that it is a third party interpreting events.

    My stance does not require any third party.

    And you are welcome to see it that way.
    But to suggest that it is the only way possible to opine about the conference is disingenuous, and you should stop.

    It is not "the" context; it is the context you are arguing.

    No. It does not work that way. The onus is on you.

    I don't need to falsify your stance in order to make my case. I do not insist that your stance is false. My stance is inclusive of yours. I actually grant most of what you say, just that this article is a lousy example of it, because context.

    Your stance is exclusive. Yours requires proving mine false (at least you have insisted so); your stance must falsify mine in order for you to make your case.

    i.e. I have nothing to falsify here. I have literally provided the direct, objective and incontrovertible preamble to the actual words Trump spoke. I don't object to your read of the event, do I don't need to prove anything about it. Thus, my case is made by doing nothing more than stating the facts of the talkers' exchange.

    You do have something to falsify, and you have not demonstrated that the words of the questioner are magically not germaine to the words of the answerer. The onus remains on you.
    Last edited: May 28, 2018
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  19. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Like you think rational thought is going to influence "those who know the real truth"? Wish in one hand....
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The syntax always goes haywire when you guys get to defending the indefensible. "Equating skin color with some perceived problem"?
    If you don't like the way ICE treats brown skin illegal immigrants, don't attack the messenger.

    btw: The US government has taken issue with any description of the unfindable brown skin children as "lost" or "missing".
    Not so, thou sensationalist media dupes - it's just that they can't locate them, or determine their welfare, because folks refuse to answer their phones:
    So as you can read, the agencies responsible were going out of their way and beyond their mandate to even attempt to monitor the fates of these kids.

    And we are loudly and repeatedly informed that any connection between these temporarily mislaid refugee kids and the ones actively separated from their families by the new policies is a slander - the guy testifying, acting undersecretary of HHS Steve Wagner, wants everyone to understand that he and his HHS office of Refugee Responsibility have nothing to do with ICE or Jeff Sessions's policies, that they are separate entities, that he is not a Trump appointment, that his team is taking care of these kids as best they can, and so forth.

    So that's ok, then.
  21. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Fuck you, troll. So that's it.
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That's not the context.
    It didn't work anyway, even for your confused purpose - you had to go find another quote elsewhere.
    Which I provided - Trump's years of using such opportunities to repeatedly use gangs and criminals and bad people to represent brown skin illegal immigrants, thereby justifying his immigration policies and presenting himself as a defender of Americans by those policies.
    That was the context of that exchange.
    That's objective, btw. There's a very large and perfectly consistent body of evidence for that. It's default.
    If you object to that, if you want a new and different context for determining the meaning of Trump's rambling and unspecific answer there, you are welcome to argue for it. So far, you have not.
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    I don't know why you are even indulging Toad. If he has things to say, he could say them without trolling and ad hom'ing.

    And please don't lump me in with him. You and I may disagree strongly, but at least we can do so as adults.

    I've requested moderator intervention to keep this civil.

Share This Page