|
|
|
|
|
| Racism........... Really.
Posted: 8/1/2009 2:08:23 PM | The use of the word black in that statement stands alone and is not tied to spite.
Then perhaps some further explanation of the rules of English grammar and sentence construction are in order.
The two words do NOT stand alone and separate. They are part of the same sentence connected by a comma. The clause "just arbitraily arrested out of spite" is a dependent clause that clarifies what is meant by "anybody black can be treated this way". It explains just exactly what is meant by "treated this way". It is the same as saying "Anybody black can be arrested out of spite". By including the word "black" the act of being "arrested out of spite" is connected to the condition of being black. If the arrest was only about "spite" and not being black then the sentence would simply say "Anybody can be treated this way, just arbitrarily arrested out of spite".
It's basic English grammar (no inference required, like we say to our students "What it is, is what it does". Its meaning is determined by its function), but you didn't REALLY need me to explain that to you did you?
But really it’s not about me—it’s that anybody black can be treated this way, just arbitrarily arrested out of spite. | |
|
| Racism........... Really.
Posted: 8/1/2009 2:29:11 PM | Thanks for the English lesson but I did not need that, or your condescending attitude.
You are inferring a cause and effect relationship between black and spite that does not exist. Spite is not dependent upon Black in the sentence.
Stating that anybody black can be treated that way does not make spite solely belong to black. Had he added the qualifying idea of "because we are black" that would have made spite solely belonging to black.
The statement would need to be modified as follows to say what you are stating:
But really it’s not about me—it’s that anybody black can be treated this way just because we are black, just arbitrarily arrested out of spite.
That gives Gates statement the meaning you are inferring. Without the modifier, the statement says that Gates was arrested out of spite, and that he happens to be black and that anybody black can be treated that way. Nowhere does gates statement ifer the spite was the result of blackness.
Twist it how you want, but in Gates own words he was arrested out of spite. He makes no inference of racism. He clearly says that he was arrested out of spite because he was going to file a report about Crowley's behavior.
And the man who arrested me did it out of spite, because he knew I was going to file a report because of his behavior
That sentence stands on its own.
It amazes me how many people are still crying racism when Gates himself is not.
This thread needs to go away. When we are down to diagramming sentences to try and prove points we sure have discussed everything there is to discuss.
It is clear here that no one on either side of the discussion is going to change their position. What is the point of trying anymore.
A few people are resorting to personal attacks, condescension and name calling to promote their points. That is not conducive to productive debate. | |
|
| Racism........... Really.
Posted: 8/1/2009 2:47:56 PM | Points deducted from mungojoe for being condesending.
Extra points given to Optimistically Cynical for getting up from a lucky upper cut by mungojoe and packing a hell of a punch to his skull, sending mungojoe to the ground for the count.
I do believe we have a knockout.
One ... two ... three ... four ... five ... six ...
 | |
|
| Racism........... Really.
Posted: 8/1/2009 3:07:14 PM |
The statement would need to be modified as follows to say what you are stating:
But really it’s not about me—it’s that anybody black can be treated this way just because we are black, just arbitrarily arrested out of spite.
No it doesn't. When Gates specifically included "black" to modify "anybody" he inherently, by definition, excluded anyone who is not "black". That means, according to basic English, that the phrase "treated this way" was referring specifically to people who are "black". Being "treated this way" is conditional on being "black" because "anybody" refers specifically to being "black".
I've already shown you how "just arbitrarily arrested out of spite" relates to being "treated this way".
Since "being treated this way" is conditional on being "black" and being "treated this way is synonymous with "just being arbitrarily arrested" then being "arbitrarily arrested" is dependent on being "black".
And the man who arrested me did it out of spite, because he knew I was going to file a report because of his behavior
That sentence stands on its own.
No, it doesn't. It is contextualized by the statement which immediately preceded it. These are not just random, disjointed sentences. They did not occur days or miles apart, they are components in what is, essentially, a thesis explaining his perception on that day.
The meaning and intent of "spite" in that particular statement is defined by the earlier statement.
Attempting to remove it from that contextualization is artifice at best and a false attribution fallacy to boot. | |
|
| Racism........... Really.
Posted: 8/1/2009 3:17:25 PM | Penalty! Major point reduction for mungojoe for excessive nit-picking.
At this point, all those who read his lenghty post can only be left to utter: What a dork!
Seriously, Optimistically Cynical stated his case. Whether he did it grammatically correct or not is beside the point. Like he said, if this whole debate is coming down to technicalities in English grammar, there is not much left to be said. | |
|
| |
| Racism........... Really.
Posted: 8/1/2009 3:36:06 PM |
<div class='quote'>It is not self-defeating to become civilized and recognize and co-operate with authority. That does not mean capitulate to offensive and oppressive government. Obviously those like Gates and Herbert are less civilized than they would like others to believe. Does Herbert advocate all black people join the self destructive Black Panthers?
You failed to distiguish the difference...when is civilized behaviour warranted and civil disobience allowed? More importantly, how through civilzation does one gain disernable knowledge of the correct application between the two?SAguy, civil disobedience is called upon when obvious and blatant injustices are the tools of authority. Gandhi used it, Martin King used it, and groups of civilians have used it to their benefit.
In this incident, had Gates really been abused as he claimed, then he could have used it. Instead he seems to have felt immune to authority for his own prejudices and perceptions and got himself arrested for disorderly conduct for unlawful actions. Anyone could debate that all they want, but he was indeed arrested, and the charges being dropped doesn’t change any of that. We’ve learned a lot about him from the information as a result of this incident that would otherwise gone unnoticed. He is a big fish in his little pond and is insignificant to the big picture concerning race relations.
When is civil disobedience allowed? Never. But it is demanded at appropriate times and the nature of civilized resistance can affects change. When it becomes apparent that civil disobedience will not work then we progress to violent revolution which is how you and I can call ourselves Americans instead of subjects to the Queen.
We’ve paid our dues in the violent transformation of a racial disparagement within our country with blood, sweat tears and lives. People like Gates can’t get their minds around that and can’t productively support our continuing progress. They can’t get around their own feelings of inferiority to accept their place in today’s enlightened civilization.
One should never become complacent to the conditions of government or to give up rights of voicing opinions against injustice. Some across America contend that Gates did just that, but others, such as myself recognize his actions as disorderly conduct without provocation. Did he learn from this “teaching” moment? I doubt it.
| |
|
|
| Page 36 of 36
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 |
|
Home
login 
