• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYC Mob Attacks Sikh Prof, Thinking He's Muslim[W:59]

Ray410 said:
Hypothetically, was this a bunch of black kids beating up a perceived Muslim? Sound like it was. Certainly Obama wanted to make sure his supporters thought he killed Osama and that's what the attackers were shouting. Maybe they were simply following Obama's lead.

Of course we all know if the victim had been a white Christian, it would never even had made the news.
Click to expand...

I like how you start with a hypothetical as your premise and end up drawing a hard conclusion.

Also you forgot the WW2 vet killed just a short while back, which is surprising because you made such a massive amount of noise about it, I guess in addition to selective reasoning you have selective memory as well.
 
rocket88 said:
That was actually my point. Seems as though it went right over everyone's head.
Click to expand...

It seems your "points" routinely go over peoples head...perhaps that says something about your "points" that you make and the way you make them then it does about the people whose "heads" you think this went "over".

This is a horrible story and tragic for the professor...but no, instead of actually addressing the story in way that talks about the news, you CHOSE to make it a partisan issue IMMEDIETELY by going out of your way to include NOTHING else to talk about in your original content other than a CLEAR implication that uit it must've been done due to the peoples political ideology, and that said ideology wasn't liberalism.

Your "Point" sucked, your "point" got RIGHTLY called out, and then as is typical you back pedaled and tried to suggest your "point" was something different than what your OP actually did or said and complained that everyone else just must not get it.
 
Phys251 said:
So bringing awareness to a potential hate crime is worse than the crime itself. Got it.
Click to expand...

Um. No.

Maggie didn't say the only thing she hates more than these things happening is people politicizing them.

Maggie said the only thing she hates more than READING stuff like this is the fact that people try to politicize it.
 
Montecresto said:
I have no agenda except seeing the US out of the ME. but these kids attacked a man thinking him Muslim, here in America, that's the point.
Click to expand...

It's funny how you're trying to play devil's advocate...asking people questions like this:

Would it just be a bunch of asshole kids causing trouble if they were brown skinned living in say Iraq or Syria and ganged up on a guy with a cross on a chain around his neck.
Click to expand...

yet you keep claiming this is an example of the war and tensions between the christian and muslim world.

Tell me...you know these people were Christians, how?

Tell me....if this was "a bunch of asshole kids" in Iraq or Syria ganging up on a guy "with a cross on a chain around his neck", would you be screaming that this just furthers the war and tensions of the christian/muslim world? Or would you be scolding people for assuming these kids are muslims / using this to paint an example of "muslims"? Would you be playing the Devil's Advocate you're trying to play here? Or would you be droning on about how the US and Christians keeps getting itself involved in the middle east, not directly defending the action but spending more time "explaining" it than actually saying any negative word about it as you are in this thread?

Check yourself before you try to act like the hypocrisy police.
 
Ray410 said:
Hypothetically, was this a bunch of black kids beating up a perceived Muslim? Sound like it was. Certainly Obama wanted to make sure his supporters thought he killed Osama and that's what the attackers were shouting. Maybe they were simply following Obama's lead.

Of course we all know if the victim had been a white Christian, it would never even had made the news.
Click to expand...

What in the hell does this post even mean? What does Obama have anything to do with this?

So you think if it was a white christian it wouldn't make the news. Great, good to know. Irrelevant. What do you think of THIS act that DID get in the news?
 
Ray410 said:
Hypothetically, was this a bunch of black kids beating up a perceived Muslim? Sound like it was. Certainly Obama wanted to make sure his supporters thought he killed Osama and that's what the attackers were shouting.
Maybe they were simply following Obama's lead.
Click to expand...

Of course we all know if the victim had been a white Christian, it would never even had made the news.
Click to expand...




You have a problem. You hate Obama and you are using this sad story to try to attack him.
 
Zyphlin said:
This is a horrible story and tragic for the professor...but no, instead of actually addressing the story in way that talks about the news, you CHOSE to make it a partisan issue IMMEDIETELY by going out of your way to include NOTHING else to talk about in your original content other than a CLEAR implication that uit it must've been done due to the peoples political ideology, and that said ideology wasn't liberalism.
Click to expand...

So you got part of it, but not all of it. See above, where this whole thing is blamed on Obama. I saw that coming when I first posted it, but everybody else made it about me. Even you, as a mod, decided to do that.
 
rocket88 said:
So you got part of it, but not all of it. See above, where this whole thing is blamed on Obama. I saw that coming when I first posted it, but everybody else made it about me. Even you, as a mod, decided to do that.
Click to expand...

Or you know, you invited that whole thing by being a similar hyper partisan type of person, politicizing hte issue from the very onset and attempting to smear and blame the other side for something based on few actual facts and almost singularly on your own biased, prejudices, and need to score pathetic political points.

People are commenting on the story within the premise and scope of the original content that you chose to provide for the purpose of spurring discussion. It's no one's fault but your own that you chose to present the discussion of this topic from the vantage point of hyper partisan idiocy and ridiculous, unfounded, pathetically sad politicizing premise regarding the issue.

Your OP basically said "Here's a story, and I think its entirely political in terms of how and why it happened". Then you want to act indigntant and shocked that others in here either:

1) Highlighted the idiocy of your OP's premise and attempt at politicizing it
2) Joined in your idiocy by following your lead in suggesting the issue is entirely political in terms of how and why it happened

Moderator's Warning:
Finally, if you have an issue with me as a "mod", you're free to report a post or us the "contact us" button. There's no topical or debate reason to reference my position as a mod; the only reason to reference it is to infer some kind of issue, complaint, or problem with how moderation is occuring/not occuring, which is against the rules. I suggest this kind of passive aggressive swipe at moderation cease in the future, or action may be taken. Have an issue with a mod posting as a poster, you can report it just as you would with any other member or you can use the "contact us" button
 
Ray410 said:
Hypothetically, was this a bunch of black kids beating up a perceived Muslim? Sound like it was. Certainly Obama wanted to make sure his supporters thought he killed Osama and that's what the attackers were shouting. Maybe they were simply following Obama's lead.

Of course we all know if the victim had been a white Christian, it would never even had made the news.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Maybe you 'know' that, but I seriously doubt that we all 'know' that.
 
Zyphlin said:
Or you know, you invited that whole thing by being a similar hyper partisan type of person, politicizing hte issue from the very onset and attempting to smear and blame the other side for something based on few actual facts and almost singularly on your own biased, prejudices, and need to score pathetic political points.

People are commenting on the story within the premise and scope of the original content that you chose to provide for the purpose of spurring discussion. It's no one's fault but your own that you chose to present the discussion of this topic from the vantage point of hyper partisan idiocy and ridiculous, unfounded, pathetically sad politicizing premise regarding the issue.

Your OP basically said "Here's a story, and I think its entirely political in terms of how and why it happened". Then you want to act indigntant and shocked that others in here either:

1) Highlighted the idiocy of your OP's premise and attempt at politicizing it
2) Joined in your idiocy by following your lead in suggesting the issue is entirely political in terms of how and why it happened
Click to expand...

I'm not shocked. If anything I saw it coming a mile away.

Interestingly, as you go off on not addressing the story, you've devoted far more paragraphs to me than to the story.

Also interesting, I might point out that I never blamed it on conservatives. You chose to read it that way, so who's problem is that?
 
rocket88 said:
That was actually my point. Seems as though it went right over everyone's head.
Click to expand...


No, you actually politicized it. There was no misunderstanding there.
 
rocket88 said:
I'm not shocked. If anything I saw it coming a mile away.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you do. People who have similar mindsets generally can predict each other well. Considering that you politicized the issue from the very onset, it stands to reason you'd fully expect others to politicize it. After all, your OP's take on this topic was SPECIFICALLY politicizing it.

Interestingly, as you go off on not addressing the story, you've devoted far more paragraphs to me than to the story.
Click to expand...

I'm addressing the topic and discussion as you presented it. If you didn't want to present it in that fashion then perhaps you should've put forth a different opening post which indicated how you wanted to talk about the story. Also, I've devoted far more time talking about your POINT and ARGUMENT regarding the topic, not you. I'm addressing the idiocy regarding your words.

Also interesting, I might point out that I never blamed it on conservatives. You chose to read it that way, so who's problem is that?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're blanking on these words in the English language called "imply" and "infer".

See, you didn't blatantly say anything about the story other than:

1. Suggesting it was political motivated
2. Suggesting that it wasn't liberals

The clear inference then that the vast majority of posters made was that you were IMPLYING that the individuals must actually have been conservatives, since typically when one brings up liberal/conservative and suggests someone is not one then the implication is that they're the other.

If that was not your intent, then I submit once again that you did a piss poor and pathetic job of displaying your *point*, and rather than casting dispersions and fault upon others for not getting your idiotic "point" that you should perhaps look inward and recognize that your attempt to make your "point" was horrible.

People can't read your mind, they can only respond to what you present. It's no ones fault but your own that prettty much NO ONE understood the "point" you *claim* to have had.
 
sangha said:
Not to mention that the people of NYC haven't elected a liberal mayor in the last two decades
Click to expand...

Yeah, hear that guys? NYC is a conservative town. :roll:
 
A place could be 51% [Party A] and 49% [Party B] and technically, in terms of elections, be thought of as being a [Party A] town...

Still doesn't mean it's reasonable, sensable, logical, or honest to try and suggest based on limited data that someone within that town doing something must be of [Party A] persuation.

So the whole "New York is liberal!" "No! New York is Conservative" argument is kind of pointless and is really there just to try and insinuate blame without coming out and stating ones intentions.
 
Zyphlin said:
A place could be 51% [Party A] and 49% [Party B] and technically, in terms of elections, be thought of as being a [Party A] town...

Still doesn't mean it's reasonable, sensable, logical, or honest to try and suggest based on limited data that someone within that town doing something must be of [Party A] persuation.

So the whole "New York is liberal!" "No! New York is Conservative" argument is kind of pointless and is really there just to try and insinuate blame without coming out and stating ones intentions.
Click to expand...


Van Buren Boys, IMO
 
Zyphlin said:
It's funny how you're trying to play devil's advocate...asking people questions like this:



yet you keep claiming this is an example of the war and tensions between the christian and muslim world.

Tell me...you know these people were Christians, how?

Tell me....if this was "a bunch of asshole kids" in Iraq or Syria ganging up on a guy "with a cross on a chain around his neck", would you be screaming that this just furthers the war and tensions of the christian/muslim world? Or would you be scolding people for assuming these kids are muslims / using this to paint an example of "muslims"? Would you be playing the Devil's Advocate you're trying to play here? Or would you be droning on about how the US and Christians keeps getting itself involved in the middle east, not directly defending the action but spending more time "explaining" it than actually saying any negative word about it as you are in this thread?

Check yourself before you try to act like the hypocrisy police.
Click to expand...

I disdain all acts of terror/violence by any group on innocent people. I'm personally unnerved by people that tie people up and shoot them execution style, chop people's heads off or cut people's hearts out and eat them.


Listen to me, certainly not all the actions of terrorism in the ME are directly or even indirectly a result of US interference in their yards. But I do believe that US policies in the region have made us less secure and is responsible for strengthening extremism. The prior administration left a once contained ME country very destabilised and there is daily suffering as result.

The current administration supported extremists in Egypt, Libya and now Syria, further destabilising the region. THIS attack in New York will be seen in the Muslim world as more Christian aggression on Muslims just as Christians see the attack on a Pakistani church this weekend as Muslim aggression on Christians (while drawing no comparisons on scope and scale, obviously.)
 
Zyphlin said:
The clear inference then that the vast majority of posters made was that you were IMPLYING that the individuals must actually have been conservatives, since typically when one brings up liberal/conservative and suggests someone is not one then the implication is that they're the other.
Click to expand...

Well then we have a real problem in the political culture. If I said this obviously wasn't done by TPers, does that mean I'm saying it was Occupiers? That's idiotic.

Not A =/= B.

Then you go on to say "People can't read (my) mind." Well that's what you're trying to do, isn't it! You give everybody a pass for trying to read my mind, then say they can't do it. I would say they obviously can't read my mind because everybody that's tried (including you) have done a piss poor job at it.
 
rocket88 said:
Well then we have a real problem in the political culture. If I said this obviously wasn't done by TPers, does that mean I'm saying it was Occupiers? That's idiotic.
Click to expand...

Well that is idiotic, but then again you're not actually attempting to make sense so that makes sense.

If there are people on two sides of a room and I go "The left side of the room MUST'VE done this action! Wait no, it couldn't have been them..." then the realistic implication is that the people on the right side of the room must've done it.

If there are people going down stairs and people going up stairs and I say "The People going up the stairs MUST'VE done this action! Wait no, it couldn't have been them..." then the realistic implication is that the people down the stairs are to blame.

If there are a group of people and everyone is either wearing green shirts or yellow shirt and I say "The people wearing green shirts MUST'Ve done this action! Wait no, it couldn't have been them...." the implication is that the yellow shirts are to blame.

If there's a football team with a defense and an offense and you go "The Offense is CLEARLY to blame for giving up 40 points! Wait no, it couldn't be their fault...." the implication is that the defense is to blame.

When you take a group with two defined, sizable, related sides and CLEARLY go out of your way to indicate that one side WASN'T responsible, the logical conclussion a listener is going to make is that you're implying that the other side is to blame.

Liberals and Conservatives are diametric opposites with regards to political ideology. While the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are broadly ideologically on opposite ends of the scales, they are not diametric opposites are they are directly connected and measured against each other in various ways nor are the movement specific ideologies direct opposites of each other.

Then you go on to say "People can't read (my) mind." Well that's what you're trying to do, isn't it!
Click to expand...

No, I'm not trying to read your mind because that's impossible. I AM trying to make a logical inference into what the point and meaning of your statements are...that's what EVERYONE does when in a conversation with someone. That's the whole purpose of the notion of context in terms of a discussion. That's why things like sarcasm are able to work in conversation.

The problem is that because people can't read your mind and KNOW for sure what you are thinking and meaning, the only thing they can go off of is what you actually say, the context surrounding, and the context of your history in terms of your views and statements makes judgements based on that.

Considering almost EVERYONE in this thread didn't "get" the "point" you THOUGHT you made...my suggestion was that the problem wasn't that it "went over our heads" but rather that you did a very ****ty job of presenting said "point".
 
Zyphlin said:
Well that is idiotic, but then again you're not actually attempting to make sense so that makes sense.

If there are people on two sides of a room and I go "The left side of the room MUST'VE done this action! Wait no, it couldn't have been them..." then the realistic implication is that the people on the right side of the room must've done it.

If there are people going down stairs and people going up stairs and I say "The People going up the stairs MUST'VE done this action! Wait no, it couldn't have been them..." then the realistic implication is that the people down the stairs are to blame.

If there are a group of people and everyone is either wearing green shirts or yellow shirt and I say "The people wearing green shirts MUST'Ve done this action! Wait no, it couldn't have been them...." the implication is that the yellow shirts are to blame.

If there's a football team with a defense and an offense and you go "The Offense is CLEARLY to blame for giving up 40 points! Wait no, it couldn't be their fault...." the implication is that the defense is to blame.

When you take a group with two defined, sizable, related sides and CLEARLY go out of your way to indicate that one side WASN'T responsible, the logical conclussion a listener is going to make is that you're implying that the other side is to blame.
Click to expand...

TBF, there aren't two defined, sizable groups here. There are a large # of people belonging to various groups.
 
Zyphlin said:
Well that is idiotic, but then again you're not actually attempting to make sense so that makes sense.

If there are people on two sides of a room and I go "The left side of the room MUST'VE done this action! Wait no, it couldn't have been them..." then the realistic implication is that the people on the right side of the room must've done it.

If there are people going down stairs and people going up stairs and I say "The People going up the stairs MUST'VE done this action! Wait no, it couldn't have been them..." then the realistic implication is that the people down the stairs are to blame.

If there are a group of people and everyone is either wearing green shirts or yellow shirt and I say "The people wearing green shirts MUST'Ve done this action! Wait no, it couldn't have been them...." the implication is that the yellow shirts are to blame.

If there's a football team with a defense and an offense and you go "The Offense is CLEARLY to blame for giving up 40 points! Wait no, it couldn't be their fault...." the implication is that the defense is to blame.

When you take a group with two defined, sizable, related sides and CLEARLY go out of your way to indicate that one side WASN'T responsible, the logical conclussion a listener is going to make is that you're implying that the other side is to blame.

Liberals and Conservatives are diametric opposites with regards to political ideology. While the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are broadly ideologically on opposite ends of the scales, they are not diametric opposites are they are directly connected and measured against each other in various ways nor are the movement specific ideologies direct opposites of each other.



No, I'm not trying to read your mind because that's impossible. I AM trying to make a logical inference into what the point and meaning of your statements are...that's what EVERYONE does when in a conversation with someone. That's the whole purpose of the notion of context in terms of a discussion. That's why things like sarcasm are able to work in conversation.

The problem is that because people can't read your mind and KNOW for sure what you are thinking and meaning, the only thing they can go off of is what you actually say, the context surrounding, and the context of your history in terms of your views and statements makes judgements based on that.

Considering almost EVERYONE in this thread didn't "get" the "point" you THOUGHT you made...my suggestion was that the problem wasn't that it "went over our heads" but rather that you did a very ****ty job of presenting said "point".
Click to expand...

American politics is full of people that don't fit in a box. Yes Liberals and Conservatives are opposites, but they don't represent the whole electorate. There are Neo-Nazis, for example, who aren't really either (In spite of the partisan hacks desperate attempts to lump them in on the "other side."). It seems far more likely to me that they would be to "blame" than either Liberals or Conservatives.

You are trying to read my mind. You're assuming that I must have meant Conservatives because....well I don't know why. Part of me thinks you really really want me to say that because it's easy to argue against.
 
Zyphlin said:
The problem is that because people can't read your mind and KNOW for sure what you are thinking and meaning, the only thing they can go off of is what you actually say, the context surrounding, and the context of your history in terms of your views and statements makes judgements based on that.

Considering almost EVERYONE in this thread didn't "get" the "point" you THOUGHT you made...my suggestion was that the problem wasn't that it "went over our heads" but rather that you did a very ****ty job of presenting said "point".
Click to expand...

Conservatives often make the mistake that I am HoJ or something. It's easier to lump people into groups. This is not the first time one of you read something into what I said and then desperately tried to blame it on me because "You liberals always say stuff like that" when I didn't say that. Try what I actually said, and stop reading what you want me to say into it.
 
rocket88 said:
Conservatives often make the mistake that I am HoJ or something. It's easier to lump people into groups. This is not the first time one of you read something into what I said and then desperately tried to blame it on me because "You liberals always say stuff like that" when I didn't say that. Try what I actually said, and stop reading what you want me to say into it.
Click to expand...

You can't make this **** up. You're "lumping" me into a "group" (conservatives, "one of you"). You're "reading what you want me to say" (Find where I ever claimed "liberals" always say or do anything in this thread). I mean...jesus christ, you basically make my counter argument against you for me.

You post a story and made an ambiguous post about it, one in which you immedietely started talking about Politicial leans as an explanation for why the action in the story occured. Since you did such a piss poor job presenting your point and provided very little actual clear details to go off of, people made their best guess as to what your point and message was. When EVERYONE seemingly missed your point to enter into victimhood mentality and blame everyone else for your point "going over [their] heads" rather than thinking that perhaps your own comments were the issue.

Despite your first post making it seem to be political, there was no indication this was political motivated in any way. Why you decided to go that route, who knows.
 
Last edited:
Being that rocket 88 posts little more than partisan trash that follows the same formula as what people interpreted the OP as, I'm going to guess he is now simply back tracking
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom