Redskins

[Arthur Brain]

:wave2::wave:

If only the rest of your contributions were like that...

lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

...I'm not debating. I'm not considering your alleged "points". You're part of the problem, not the solution.

Said the fellow who just said he isn't considering what I'm saying. lain:

I'm not sure who you think you are to tell others what they should seriously consider doing or not doing, though.

Anyone who could attempt to say that this:

if you find yourself offending people you don't mean to you should seriously consider not doing that.

constitutes telling others what to do should get credits toward a creative writing concentration/major. lain:

Or, it's an operation of logic predicated on the assumption that people mean what they say when they say the don't mean to offend. Or it's a way of letting people illustrate what they really mean, one way or another.

Especially when it's something they're not doing.

I'm not speaking to people who aren't doing anything...except for you, of course.

 

[resurrected]

I'm not considering your alleged "points".

that's not fair


if you don't accept that he's winning on points, how will we all know that he's won?



and it's really really really important to him to think that he's won :darwinsm:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

that's not fair

if you don't accept that he's winning on points, how will we all know that he's won?

and it's really really really important to him to think that he's won :darwinsm:

I can tell. But he has the respect of one of the anti-religionists who's an engineer, so there's that for him, I guess.

I don't need a "win". All I need is God's Rhema and to know exactly what's going down on the world stage to sculpt hearts and minds according to the spirit of antichrist.

Let the Beast roar.

 

[Yorzhik]

What's less shocking is your not offering proof, only digging in with that opinion you had before you got around to considering the evidence the court examined.

I have an informed opinion based on consideration before the court case happened. With no surprise, the holding offered the same wrong-headed reasoning.

It's not the foundation or even the point of my argument and never has been, which is why you've failed to quote me.

However, if you are arguing that they should lose their trademark, then of course they should. Trademarks are a bad idea, right along with copyrights and patents.

Which has nothing to do with you offering and my noting a misleading definition or your having a good case to advance in parallel as a matter of law, which you don't appear to.

That was the point. As to your being offended: if you're offended then you're offended. I've always held that. I held it about your problem with the word Yankee more than once.

And I said: I never did, not once, anywhere.

No, they didn't. They don't speak for me. I do. I never said that and the whole circus you tried to bring to town on top of that, in my name, never came.

I asked for cases and cash layout that would sustain your notion of lawyers and profit being the root in this and...you found one case over something that isn't the n-word seeking less than eight thousand dollars in damages and another that appears to be actually over the n-word that won't load but looks to have gotten a teacher suspended, at least temporaily, in the Chicago area.

Which, again, is a notion I haven't advanced or defended.

I wrote: When you take something like [the n-word] and shine a light on it and the people who use it you make it harder for them to move the margins.

You might want to consult scripture when it comes to bandying that word about, Yor.

Spoken like someone who didn't grow up in the South. But you're unintentionally making my argument for me. That is, why would a racist not use a word that identifies him, Yor? I'll wait while you work out the implications (and they aren't legal).

But racists are in one of two camps: the first sort will say it and consequence be damned, because he's so ruled by his hatred he thinks of it as a virtue. The second sort isn't really hard wired. He goes along and finds the tangential empowerment beneficial. Take that away and he shies and the impact of that is a public good, over time. That's what we've seen in the South. It helps.

You're not a fool if you don't understand that, but you're ignorant.

Rather, I accept that people know when they're offended. And if you do that when you mean to compliment and instead find yourself offending you should stop doing that.

So if I understand you correctly, you are not calling for the Redskins to change their name?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

If only the rest of your contributions were like that...

lain:

Of course you do. You're an "Other". :thumb:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

They aren't alleged points, unlike your acumen.

Empty rhetoric from someone who hasn't demonstrably grasped them or responded. Anyone can jeer from the cheap seats.

Anyone who could attempt to say that this:

if you find yourself offending people you don't mean to you should seriously consider not doing that.

constitutes telling others what to do should get credits toward a creative writing concentration/major. lain:

Or, it's an operation of logic predicated on the assumption that people mean what they say when they say the don't mean to offend. Or it's a way of letting people illustrate what they really mean, one way or another.

I'm not speaking to people who aren't doing anything...except for you, of course.

I'm still not taking the bait. There's no need to discuss your alleged "points". They're all irrelevant. The low-context truth is fathoms upon fathoms beneath all you think or say from your flaming tower of high-context concepts.

:wave2::wave:

 

[journey]

I was just thinking that things are going in circles in this thread. It appears that the same points have been made numerous times. I don't think that anything else could be said to change minds about this.

 

[resurrected]

:freak:


nobody ever changes their mind





except for that one time artie exchanged his for a turnip

it was an improvement :thumb:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Of course you do. You're an "Other". :thumb:

What a high context conceptual point you made there.

It almost reminds me of embracing the fallacy of the consequent...

lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm still not taking the bait.

A curious way to note an inability to do more than shake an empty sleeve from behind a repetition of unsupported nonsense and an unwillingness to engage on any substantive point. But I think I understand you. You simply aren't prepared to step out from behind those rehearsed phrases and expose the chasm they cover.

Good on you.

There's no need to discuss your alleged "points".

There's no need to post at all, as you ably demonstrate by posting nothing much repeatedly.

They're all irrelevant.

He declares without proof and from comfortably outside of the ring.

The low-context truth is fathoms upon fathoms beneath all you think or say from your flaming tower of high-context concepts.

Yes, you've already all but burned that bulb out. Perhaps you could pull your texts together and find a new phrase or two for the next non engagement/pronouncement.

Silly fellow.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

What a high context conceptual point you made there.

It almost reminds me of embracing the fallacy of the consequent...

lain:

What a hack at pretending to know what high-context means.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

A curious way to note an inability to do more than shake an empty sleeve from behind a repetition of unsupported nonsense and an unwillingness to engage on any substantive point. But I think I understand you. You simply aren't prepared to step out from behind those rehearsed phrases and expose the chasm they cover.

Good on you.

There's no need to post at all, as you ably demonstrate by posting nothing much repeatedly.

He declares without proof and from comfortably outside of the ring.

Yes, you've already all but burned that bulb out. Perhaps you could pull your texts together and find a new phrase or two for the next non engagement/pronouncement.

Silly fellow.

Well... At least you seem like you might be a reasonably nice guy.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I was just thinking that things are going in circles in this thread. It appears that the same points have been made numerous times. I don't think that anything else could be said to change minds about this.

Washington Redskins!!!!!!!!

 

[Town Heretic]

Well... At least you seem like you might be a reasonably nice guy.

When I can be. But I have a difficult time suffering undergraduates.

Washington Redskins!!!!!!!!

Where? lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

What a hack at pretending to know what high-context means.

Given how you tediously go on about it and decline actual debate in favour of using the damn phrase as if it's a point of some significance, it merely underlines how much of a pretentious clod you actually are frankly. You're not here to discuss or engage, you're simply here to laud your own ego, or so it would appear up to now. Plenty of folk are pissed off with your pomposity though I don't suppose that will give you any pause for thought...

 

[resurrected]

... shake an empty sleeve ....

:darwinsm:

right up there with "stamp foot and declare a bad thing" :darwinsm:


:mock:town, the prissy girlie-man

... decline actual debate...

when artie starts whining about "a real debate" or "a debate on points", you know he's been hitting the sauce :chuckle:

 

[Granite]

I was just thinking that things are going in circles in this thread. It appears that the same points have been made numerous times. I don't think that anything else could be said to change minds about this.

I think you're right.

One of my takeaways? People will go to great lengths to justify being offensive, or a jerk, or just a wretch in general--far greater lengths than anyone really thinks.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

When I can be. But I have a difficult time suffering undergraduates.

Yeah, that puffed-up gnosis is a cruel master. I'll be down here at the low-context foundation of love abounding in epignosis as your soar by in that hot air balloon of high-context gnosis.

Where? lain:

(In Christmas commercial voice... "They're everywhere. They're everywhere.")

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Given how you tediously go on about it and decline actual debate in favour of using the damn phrase as if it's a point of some significance, it merely underlines how much of a pretentious clod you actually are frankly. You're not here to discuss or engage, you're simply here to laud your own ego, or so it would appear up to now. Plenty of folk are pissed off with your pomposity though I don't suppose that will give you any pause for thought...

I've actually explained the problem with English programming of thought via its high-context structure. It just almost has to be done in live teaching. Apart from that, it's all me watching others soar by overhead in puffed-up gnosis while presuming I'm the one who's puffed-up.

Without exception and within the first hour of live teaching, everyone begins to realize exactly what I'm referring to. You and others have no idea how your thought and belief systems are passively patterned and hypnotically initiated and perpetuated at the language level. And it began gestationally in the womb, continuing to the present.

If you knew and understood this, you'd be much more upset about being violated and molested in your mind and heart by language structure, and much less upset at what you've alleged is my pomposity, etc.

If you weren't so conceptually driven by your own mind and will, you could clearly see how Satan's primary devices are directed at the logos (intelligent and rational reasoning with expression) of man.

That's one of the main ways mankind is in the image of God, and it's by His own Logos that all was created; with the Rhema of His power upholding all things.