Subject:
|
Re: Bennett IS unworthy of being used as toilet paper
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Oct 2005 21:10:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1284 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
s to say it.
| |
They won’t say it because it is patently absurd, just as Bennett was arguing
reductio ad absurdum.
|
I doubt it. He chose a racist example to make his point.
| |
Come on! You seriously can’t think that Bennett had any inkling that this
action was anything but rhetorical fodder! Your biased against Bennett the
person is clouding your judgment.
|
He didn’t he have an inkling? Okay, he is an idiot then. Racist, idiot: I
don’t see why you would bother to defend either.
I’m biased against Bennett? That’s an amusing claim: I honestly don’t even know
who the heck he is, or if he is a Republican or Democrat, or even if he is an
American. You, on the other hand, seem to be biased in his favor and it is
definitely clouding your judgment. Say what you want to about the Guardian, but
defending Bennett to get at the Guardian seems pretty biased to me.
| |
| |
3. You aren’t making a racially
based insinuation that blacks are the source of crime.
|
But they are a source of crime! And disproportionately so. Not the
source of crime, but Bennett doesn’t assert this anyway.
|
And whites are a source of crime, and they commit more crimes than blacks do in
America, but is his example about aborting all white babies? If the guy wasn’t
a racist (closet or otherwise) he would have made reference to economic
background rather than race. He’d rather get in a little fear-mongering.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
31 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
