4 ms·

The only irony here is your complete failure to understand my original comment and your own failure to provide reasoning for your own false conclusion. Based o

by eldude 11y ago

The only irony here is your complete failure to understand my original comment and your own failure to provide reasoning for your own false conclusion. Based on the facts in the OP and parent comment, I was disassembling the race-baiting rhetoric as anti-intellectual and fact-less (which, since you missed it, is itself a fact), to refocus on the original issue. Meanwhile, double-ironically, you again ignore context and facts, equivocate ("real issue"), and wildly mischaracterize me to make an increasingly invalid point based on a fundamental misunderstanding of my comment.

boomlinde 11y ago
The only irony here is your complete failure to understand my original comment and your own failure to provide reasoning for your own false conclusion. Which exactly is my false conclusion? Weren't you referring to the real issue? Doesn't the determiner in that mean that there is a only a single such thing? Did you offer any basis for the assumption that it was indeed the single real issue? Those are the assumptions of my conclusion. It's fair if you wrote "the real issue" and actually meant something else, in which case my conclusion would indeed be invalid, but not writing in clear terms hardly puts you in a position to accuse me of equivocation.
- eldude 11y ago
  You falsely conclude that I have a singular (implicitly subjective) "real issue", to which I "offer" "no other explanation." In fact, despite your projecting, by "real" / "original" issue, I meant the mistreatment of children by authority in schools, which is both the context of the parent comment and the original article from which the TechCrunch article derives. Again, for clarity, I am asserting that the original article focuses on student mistreatment and not race, TechCrunch subverts it, and the parent comment refocuses on it. In other words, the "real issue" was pre-established as the context for and precedes my comment. All my comment served to do, was concisely articulate the issue of the preceding contexts, which is self-evident when reworded to be less generic, "Use of institutional force by the police and school officials to suppress or punish divergent student behavior."
  - elektromekatron 11y ago
    "All my comment served to do, was concisely articulate the issue of the preceding contexts, which is self-evident when reworded to be less generic" I doubt you could concisely articulate anything if your preceding contexts depended upon it.
    - eldude 11y ago
      > I doubt you could concisely articulate anything if your preceding contexts depended upon it. Umm.... My "preceding contexts depended upon it"? First, as stated, the preceding contexts were not mine. Second, concisely articulating someone else's stance or summary, or a current context, while not easy, is trivially simple. Here's an example: Contents of Moby Dick => "A whale fishing allegory about the idolization of man's desires and its limitations."
      - elektromekatron 11y ago
        Contents of Moby Dick => Ahab's leg.
DanBC 11y ago
The police made repeated mention of his surname. You might want to ignore race but thischild's religion was clearly a factor for the investigating police.
- eldude 11y ago
  You're mistaken. You might want to ignore race [...] I neither appreciate the defaming mischaracterization resulting from your mistake, nor do I appreciate the casual and irresponsible manner in which you do so: police made repeated mention of his surname. Neither the original DallasNews article nor the TechCrunch article makes any such assertion about . The only person who draws that assertion is his dad, for which he provided no supporting evidence, and has a history of political provocation on this specific issue. (Not saying it's not true, but he's definitely not citing anything or anyone, so as presented, its only an opinion.)
  - elektromekatron 11y ago
    Actually, it is the kid himself is who is saying it. http://mic.com/articles/125400/texas-police-officer-to-ahmed-mohamed-after-arrest-that-s-who-i-thought-it-was http://mic.com/articles/125400/texas-police-officer-to-ahmed... Now given you are getting all high and mighty bandying around terms like defamation, you going to go calling him a liar?
    - eldude 11y ago
      EDIT: I believe you are misunderstanding the meaning of my previous comment based on its use of indefinite pronouns and how it was physically structured relative to the quote block. Rather than rehash it here, please re-read it.[1] EDIT 2: Looks like my Edit window timed out. I meant to also update this line as follows: Neither the original DallasNews article nor the TechCrunch article makes any such assertion about the officer's use of his surname. I'm not going to call him a liar, because that presumes malice. He was wrong and irresponsible in his defaming statement. EDIT 3: One last time for clarity, the kid felt his name to be relevant (which still does not mean his name was in fact relevant), but did not assert that the "police made repeated mention of his surname", which, apart from the mischaracterizations, was specifically what I was refuting. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10228819 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10228819

by eldude 11y ago

boomlinde 11y ago

The only irony here is your complete failure to understand my original comment and your own failure to provide reasoning for your own false conclusion. Which exactly is my false conclusion? Weren't you referring to the real issue? Doesn't the determiner in that mean that there is a only a single such thing? Did you offer any basis for the assumption that it was indeed the single real issue? Those are the assumptions of my conclusion. It's fair if you wrote "the real issue" and actually meant something else, in which case my conclusion would indeed be invalid, but not writing in clear terms hardly puts you in a position to accuse me of equivocation.

eldude 11y ago
You falsely conclude that I have a singular (implicitly subjective) "real issue", to which I "offer" "no other explanation." In fact, despite your projecting, by "real" / "original" issue, I meant the mistreatment of children by authority in schools, which is both the context of the parent comment and the original article from which the TechCrunch article derives. Again, for clarity, I am asserting that the original article focuses on student mistreatment and not race, TechCrunch subverts it, and the parent comment refocuses on it. In other words, the "real issue" was pre-established as the context for and precedes my comment. All my comment served to do, was concisely articulate the issue of the preceding contexts, which is self-evident when reworded to be less generic, "Use of institutional force by the police and school officials to suppress or punish divergent student behavior."
- elektromekatron 11y ago
  "All my comment served to do, was concisely articulate the issue of the preceding contexts, which is self-evident when reworded to be less generic" I doubt you could concisely articulate anything if your preceding contexts depended upon it.
  - eldude 11y ago
    > I doubt you could concisely articulate anything if your preceding contexts depended upon it. Umm.... My "preceding contexts depended upon it"? First, as stated, the preceding contexts were not mine. Second, concisely articulating someone else's stance or summary, or a current context, while not easy, is trivially simple. Here's an example: Contents of Moby Dick => "A whale fishing allegory about the idolization of man's desires and its limitations."
    - elektromekatron 11y ago
      Contents of Moby Dick => Ahab's leg.

DanBC 11y ago

The police made repeated mention of his surname. You might want to ignore race but thischild's religion was clearly a factor for the investigating police.

eldude 11y ago
You're mistaken. You might want to ignore race [...] I neither appreciate the defaming mischaracterization resulting from your mistake, nor do I appreciate the casual and irresponsible manner in which you do so: police made repeated mention of his surname. Neither the original DallasNews article nor the TechCrunch article makes any such assertion about . The only person who draws that assertion is his dad, for which he provided no supporting evidence, and has a history of political provocation on this specific issue. (Not saying it's not true, but he's definitely not citing anything or anyone, so as presented, its only an opinion.)
- elektromekatron 11y ago
  Actually, it is the kid himself is who is saying it. http://mic.com/articles/125400/texas-police-officer-to-ahmed-mohamed-after-arrest-that-s-who-i-thought-it-was http://mic.com/articles/125400/texas-police-officer-to-ahmed... Now given you are getting all high and mighty bandying around terms like defamation, you going to go calling him a liar?
  - eldude 11y ago
    EDIT: I believe you are misunderstanding the meaning of my previous comment based on its use of indefinite pronouns and how it was physically structured relative to the quote block. Rather than rehash it here, please re-read it.[1] EDIT 2: Looks like my Edit window timed out. I meant to also update this line as follows: Neither the original DallasNews article nor the TechCrunch article makes any such assertion about the officer's use of his surname. I'm not going to call him a liar, because that presumes malice. He was wrong and irresponsible in his defaming statement. EDIT 3: One last time for clarity, the kid felt his name to be relevant (which still does not mean his name was in fact relevant), but did not assert that the "police made repeated mention of his surname", which, apart from the mischaracterizations, was specifically what I was refuting. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10228819 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10228819