Well, I see you're still dissecting sentences to suit your own ends; maybe elementary journalistic manoeuvres (or wiles, as you prefer to consider them) come naturally to you?
-
FGM case in Atlanta
-
(** rolls eyes heavenward **)
It's a good thing not all post are answered, or all thread would go on forever.
-
In reply to: You said, "This is a very sensible take on the Bible. I agree with it."What thor said makes very little sense, unless you have a new definition for "good" and "equal". I'm not really interested in expanding on what he said here. It made sense. If you don't get it...well then you don't. It's no big deal since my comment, while public, was to him.
-
What Steve's saying is how can you call a slave equal, when they are subject to your command and have restricted freedoms as well as being put on a lower level of class structure, leading them to feel inferior. You can treat them relatively kind, but to treat them the same as everyone else would be to release them so they can be equal, thus making the support of slavery a directly contrasting statement to treating them as equals.
-
The point that I am making here Steve, is this: If you genuinely disagree, or have some legitimate query with a particular statement that somebody makes, then why the need to dissect that sentence and query just a portion of it?The particular instance I am referring to is pretty trivial in the scheme of things, but you have dissected the content of my posts (and other peoples, that I have witnessed) many many times before now, in a habit of style which takes the original meaning out of all context and, to be honest, becomes quite grating on the nerves.Surely if a statement runs perpendicular to your point of view, it does not make logical sense to dissect it and query just a portion of it? If you disagree with a statement, surely it ought to be with the statement as a whole? But that dismemberment of expression is something of a habit of yours and, being quite senseless as far as I can see, has got to the point where I have to assume you do this for the sake of argument, and nothing more.
-
but you have dissected the content of my posts (and other peoples, that I have witnessed) many many times before now, in a habit of style which takes the original meaning out of all context and, to be honest, becomes quite grating on the nerves.Sorry, you are mistaken. Most non-trivial statements make more than one assertion, and it's not like three wrong assertions plus seven correct ones lead to a sensible conclusion. It's like a buiding with several bad girders: it tends to collapse.If, for instance, your argument is in part based on an incorrect assumption, and that assumption is shown to be incorrect, then your argument has a serious weakness. The alternative is to say in many words, "No, you're wrong", speaking in generalities.That's logical, isn't it?
-
Well, I wouldn't expect you to say anything other than that I was mistaken, as you have done (on cue!) which lends weight to my assertion that you comport yourself in this manner simply for arguments sake.
I am discussing your ritual dissection of individual sentences Steve, as in this case, on my having said: "I am dying for some proponent of FGM to come on here voicing ridiculous assertions, though I very much doubt the likelihood of that development!"
You chose to ignore the second part of this sentence, in your response which began "Don't hold your breath for that to happen", as though the comma in this instance was actually a full stop, and nothing came after that. I am quite sure you, and anyone else with half a brain, can understand why this is unnecessary and argumentative on your behalf.
My question to you would be, since this has got to be clear to you, why do you persist with this silly and childish behaviour?
-
That was an artful response, but once again, wrong. You interpreted my comment as an attack on you ("Duuuh, of course not!"), when if fact it was not. If I tell you it was not, you won't believe me, because you thing you already know what's going on inside my head, and what journalistic devices you think I'm using, and so on. There's no way I can dissuade you. We can go back and forth forever, to no avail. You have it all figured out (right?), so it's pointless.
Really, there's no agenda involved here.
-
Well, there was nothing artful about your response, I have to say. I think I've said as much as I want to say about this, in any case.