On the contrary -- the dishonesty and disingenousnessis among those that base their answer to the question on who made the statement. The question itself requires no context (which is different than a possible need to expain the terms as happened early on) as it would have been just as valid if no one had made a statement to that effect.Goobie, let's be real here.
You asked the question knowing full well that the comment was made by a Black person, specifically, the President. You had to know that had any Liberal come in here and disagreed with what the President said before realizing that he said it, you could use their comments against them by referring back to the President using his words against not only the Liberal poster but the President himself. To that extent, you've been disingenuous.
You know the origin of the term "flak" right?
And as for CC and Redress -- if anyone OTHER than Goobieman had asked the question "Are African-Americans a mongrel people," would either of you have said, thoughtfully, "Hmmm. In what context do you mean that"? Be honest.
Um... sorta.Yeah, from WWII movies.
She huffs and puffs, but still can't blow down the house.I am a big fan of context. The fact that Goobie loves trap threads just made the need more obvious.
Um... sorta.
Flak (more properly, FlaK) is shorthand German for FliegerabwerKannon, or 'anti aircraft gun'. Pretty simple, eh? The FlaK-18 and the FlaK-36 were the famous 88mm AA guns we all know and love.
Pak (more properly, PaK) is shorthand German for Panzerabwerkannon, or 'anti armot (tank) gun', Examplesof these are the 75mm Pak40.
"Flak" caught on in popular useage, whereas 'PaK' did not.
Oh... that's disappointing.I'm guessing that the term "flak" took off because of all the WWII movies that featured dogfights and such. I learned about it from the movie "Memphis Belle"
Oh... that's disappointing.
Had a conservative said "africans Americans are a mongrel people" he would have been metaphorically crucified by the liberal media for saying the exact same stuff in the exact same context as Obama did. I do not think it is wrong to point that out. Jumping over Obama for saying "africans Americans are a mongrel people" is still petty and just doing the the same stuff stupid libs did when Bush was in office.Yet another stupid thread started by conservatives to bash Obama over something so minor and insignificant.
You would think after 8 years of partisan liberal hacks pulling this crap on Bush, conservatives would realize how stupid these sort of threads make people look.
What's that? Still think your opinion is meanigful? Yawn.
How should have I asked it to bring it into context?
And how would that have changed your response?
I cannot possibly see how any of the "context" issues have any relevance to someones' asnwer to the question. Show me how I am wrong.
The ONLY way they make any difference is if your answer to the question depends on who asks (or, in this case, who makes the statement).
Is that indeed the case?
THis man gets a cookie.
Since CC has thusly been proven wrong, he is buying.
And as for CC and Redress -- if anyone OTHER than Goobieman had asked the question "Are African-Americans a mongrel people," would either of you have said, thoughtfully, "Hmmm. In what context do you mean that"? Be honest.
She huffs and puffs, but still can't blow down the house.
How should have I asked it to bring it into context?
And how would that have changed your response?
I cannot possibly see how any of the "context" issues have any relevance to someones' asnwer to the question. Show me how I am wrong.
The ONLY way they make any difference is if your answer to the question depends on who asks (or, in this case, who makes the statement).
Is that indeed the case?
She huffs and puffs, but still can't blow down the house.
How should have I asked it to bring it into context?
And how would that have changed your response?
I cannot possibly see how any of the "context" issues have any relevance to someones' asnwer to the question. Show me how I am wrong.
The ONLY way they make any difference is if your answer to the question depends on who asks (or, in this case, who makes the statement).
Is that indeed the case?
If you waned an honest discussion, instead of trying to not reveal what was said, in it's entirety, you should have opened with the full comment and asked opinions. When asking people to form opinions based on partial evidence, you are trying to set something up.
i think you are missing the point. whether that is by design, only you would know
let's replace the use of "mongrel" with "niggardly" and expose its useage, asking if it is an appropriate term to use
certainly both have legitimate uses, but both can be bent to convey negative connotations
by exposing those words as they were used by a public official deprives the person being polled of an ability to recognize that the context in which each word is used has significance. without the applied context, many may be inclined to have a knee jerk reaction. we saw this in the media a while back with the use of "niggardly" despite the word then being used in a benign manner
a couple of moderators seem to want to assign a malignant intent to the OP's thread and the way it was presented. you would have basis to know the forum member's posting history, and that very possibly colors your assumptions. but it should be recognized that even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while
Except that did not occur here. If one uses the word niggardly, whether it be a public official or not, HOW the word is used in context is key in ascribing meaning. And that meaning, in context will be consistent regardless of who says it.
In this case, the blind squirrel still hasn't found the nut.
you have just made my argument, defending the OP's thread
had he inserted the actual useage as the moderators have suggested, recognition that context counts in the application of the word "mongrel" would have been lost
let the OP keep his nuts
If you had an honest problem with all of this, you'd answer these questions:If you waned an honest discussion...
Gotcha. I got into WW2 in '75 or '76.Meh, I was like 13 when I saw that movie. They didn't go into too much military history before highschool when I was growing up.
Yeah... but who is doing that?Jumping over Obama for saying "africans Americans are a mongrel people" is still petty and just doing the the same stuff stupid libs did when Bush was in office.
... you really dont have anything worthwhile here by refusing to answer these questions:I already demonstrated how...
No, if he had inserted the actual usage, understanding the context would have portrayed the word honestly, rather than attempting to make a disintegritous connection. The speaker would have remained irrelevant... except to the OP who wanted to create the trap.
He can't keep what he couldn't find.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?