• 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!

Are African-Americans a mongrel people?

Are African-Americans a mongrel people?

  • Total voters
    33
Caine said:
No... its not.
It doesn't matter what the context is. Its not offensive to state that African Americans are of mixed breed.
Click to expand...

It does matter what the context is because it can be offensive to state that African Americans are of mixed breed.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You have continued to refuse to address the issue about why you did not include context in your OP....
Click to expand...
You have continued to fail to show how the context of the statement matters when considering the question; I have put several questions to you to that effect and you have sailed to addess each of them.
So, you can continue to troll if you want, but in doing so you're simply wasting bandwidth.
 
Goobieman said:
This distinction heres is based on the meaning of the term "mongrel" as asked in the question. You probably didn't notice that I cleared this up in post #5.
That's not a context issue, that's a 'which meaning of the word do you mean" issue. The meaning CAN be discerned thru context, but you do not necessarily NEED context in order to determine it.
So, your complaint falls flat. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Post #5 identifies a definition, it does not identify context in the entirety of what Obama said. Words and sentences do not live in a vacuum. They are connected inside the presentation. I know that this concept ruins what you were trying to do, here, and I doubt you will take responsibility for your intent, but it doesn't change the fact that you are being dishonest in your presentation. You know it, most of the rest of us know it, and you got caught. Again. As usual.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
If you look at the thread, Caine, all folks are addressing is the context of what was said. People don't care who said it. Further, speaking for myself, I don't care who said it. Based on the context, it means the same thing regardless. Goobie is trying to trap people into attacking Obama by NOT addressing the context of what was said. This is the point that he has refused to respond to.
Click to expand...
This is your false assumption, as previously noted. You may continue to pursue this false assumption, but you do so from willful ignorance.
 
Goobieman said:
You have continued to fail to show how the context of the statement matters when considering the question; I have put several questions to you to that effect and you have sailed to addess each of them.
So, you can continue to troll if you want, but in doing so you're simply wasting bandwidth.
Click to expand...

I have certainly described how context matters... as have many others. You just refuse to accept it because it messes up your little plan, here. You have refused to answer the questions that I have posed to you. I will keep asking them until you do.

Explain why you did not include context in your OP and and why you are dishonestly claiming that people are addressing who said it when people are actually addressing the context in which it was said.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You're doing it again. Ignoring what is being said and instead responding to what you want people to have said.
Click to expand...
As the desert said to the grain of sand...
 
Goobieman said:
This is your false assumption, as previously noted. You may continue to pursue this false assumption, but you do so from willful ignorance.
Click to expand...

Completely accurate, Goobie. I'm sure you won't admit it... you never have. Doesn't change it's accuracy.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Completely accurate, Goobie.
Click to expand...
Your continued willful ignorance has rendered you irrlevant.
When you gather the courage to admit to yourself that you may be wrong about your assumptions, and then decide that perhaps I -did- had some motive other than what you thought I had, -- as I flatly states was the case -- get back to me.
Otherwise, feel free to cling to your bigotry.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Post #5 identifies a definition, it does not identify context in the entirety of what Obama said
Click to expand...
It provides -all- the 'context' necessary to answer the question accurately and honestly.
 
Goobieman said:
As the desert said to the grain of sand...
Click to expand...

You might want to post a thread with an honest question if you actually want answers. However, what you do is something that a long ago poster once described... and something he did as often as you. You are creating a poll to soapbox, not to discuss an issue.
 
Goobieman said:
It provides -all- the 'context' necessary to answer the question accurately and honestly.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It provides a definition of a word. It does not provide the context in which the word was used in the presentation that was made.
 
Goobieman said:
How should have I asked it to bring it into context?
And how would that have changed your response?
Click to expand...

I think your answer has already been put forth in this thread. For me, the absense of the balance of the conversation leading to that particular piece of it, gave me incomplete information to base a credible response on, even more than the lack of citation of who said it. Since I really didn't pass any judgment, because of the lack of pertinent info, it might have allowed me to present an informed opinion instead.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
This distinction heres is based on the meaning of the term "mongrel" as asked in the question. You probably didn't notice that I cleared this up in post #5.
That's not a context issue, that's a 'which meaning of the word do you mean" issue. The meaning CAN be discerned thru context, but you do not necessarily NEED context in order to determine it.
So, your complaint falls flat. Sorry.
Click to expand...

"African American people are mixed breed, much like white people"

African American people are mixed breed, making then inferior to pure blooded whites"

Both use the same line, both have entirely different contexts based on the words surrounding it
 
Zyphlin said:
"African American people are mixed breed, much like white people"

African American people are mixed breed, making then inferior to pure blooded whites"

Both use the same line, both have entirely different contexts based on the words surrounding it
Click to expand...

Yeah?
Whats any of that have to do with the question I asked, especially given the clarification of the meaning of the word 'mongrel' given in post #5?
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
You might want to post a thread with an honest question if you actually want answers. However, what you do is something that a long ago poster once described... and something he did as often as you. You are creating a poll to soapbox, not to discuss an issue.
Click to expand...
Your ignorant and bigoted opinion, as mentioned before, is noted and discarded.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No it doesn't. It provides a definition of a word. It does not provide the context in which the word was used in the presentation that was made.
Click to expand...
On the contrary -- it provides the meaning of the word exactly as it was meant.
That's all the 'context' you need to answer the question.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Your consistent dishonesty in posting is noted and discarded.
Click to expand...
Yeah? So why are you still here?
I mean other than to illustrate your bigotry and ignorance?
 
Goobieman said:
On the contrary -- it provides the meaning of the word exactly as it was meant.
That's all the 'context' you need to answer the question.
Click to expand...

It does not demonstrate the context of the word in the presentation. Words do not reside in a vacuum. Without the context in the presentation, your question is meaningless... or just a lame attempt at a trap... or both.
 
Goobieman said:
Yeah? So why are you still here?
I mean other than to illustrate your bigotry and ignorance?
Click to expand...

Just reminding you of your dishonesty. Your posts seem to illustrate that you keep forgetting.
 
The Uncola said:
I think your answer has already been put forth in this thread. For me, the absense of the balance of the conversation leading to that particular piece of it, gave me incomplete information to base a credible response on
Click to expand...
What else do you/did you need to answer the question, other than the specific meaning of the term 'mongrel', and why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom