gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You don't have to be able to read minds, but context. That's given the fact that the entire sentence was to demonstrate how what Demea just said didn't assist the argument made. Again, I did not bring up racism. It's not my fault that you fail to comprehend.
You were the only person to say they were "admitted racists". That was your claim about them. Demea never said that.
Quote:
Edit: If you want to be literal about it, I started the sentence with "Are YOU saying".
Yes, but "these admitted racists" was your own description of the police, not Demea's. You labeled them that way. Thus, that was your opinion of them. If you'd just said "Are you saying these cops..." you'd have been fine. You're referring to the same group that Demea was talking about. If you'd even said "Are you saying these racist cops..." you'd still be ok, since an assumption of racism was inherent in Demea's description. But the second you put the word "admitted" in there, you're adding to the description. You're no longer talking just talking about cops doing something that Demea perceives as racist, but cops who have admitted publicly that they are racist.
That's a whole different ball game. And let's be honest here, the intent behind that isn't just to respond to Demea, but also to add more weight to the assumption of racism on the part of the cops. You're adding that extra assumption in there so as to make a broader point about cops in NYC. And that's all you. So yeah, I'm going to respond to that. Don't apply descriptions to people that you can't back up. You're free to respond to someone else's claim, assume it's true and analyze that (as you were attempting to do). But when you add to that description you are adding to that description and you have to be willing to support that claim.
Quote:
There is too much context to support the fact that I was pointing out a contradiction in the given argument. That is, those actions aren't something racists would do.
Ok. Then why call them "admitted racists"? There must have been a reason for doing this. Even if you weren't aware of why, it's there. I'll give you a hint: It's about influencing people's opinions of NY cops outside of and in addition to the discussion at hand. It's about applying a label anytime you can, knowing that through repetition, such labels will stick. It's a common tactic. It's how you influence people without having to defend your claim, because you can do exactly what you are doing right here: Claim "I didn't say they admitted to being racists". But meanwhile you still get to apply the label. Over and over. Unless someone points out that you shouldn't do this.
Which is why I called you on it. Don't do that. If you want to respond to someone else, use the same terms they used. Don't change their words and/or add your own. Because when you do that, you're being dishonest in your response to some degree. Again, it's no longer just about responding to what Demea said, but adding your own spin to it. You need to be willing to own up to that change.
Edited, Mar 9th 2016 3:04pm by gbaji
The label "admitted racists" was used to put emphasis on the contradiction. How can someone's actions be based on racism and not be racist?
Edited, Mar 10th 2016 2:01am by Almalieque
