Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 60

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

  1. #41
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.

    Van Buren Boys, IMO

  2. #42
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    Van Buren Boys, IMO
    Maybe the victim inadvertently flashed their sign
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  3. #43
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    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.)

  4. #44
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,165

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post

    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.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  5. #45
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    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.
    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!
    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".

  6. #46
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    TBF, there aren't two defined, sizable groups here. There are a large # of people belonging to various groups.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  7. #47
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,165

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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".
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  8. #48
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,165

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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".
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  9. #49
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    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.
    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.

  10. #50
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

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

    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

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •