3 ms·
You're not being circumspect, because what you said initially was clear. I gave you a chance to take it back, and you went further. Also, anyone who equivocates
by forapurpose 9y ago
You're not being circumspect, because what you said initially was clear. I gave you a chance to take it back, and you went further. Also, anyone who equivocates on something like that rather than simply condemning clearly is promoting the idea; for example, if a public figure spoke like you, nobody would doubt what they mean and they would lose their job.
- jsoc815 9y agoI'm not much for spelling everything out. The OP seemed to understand what I was saying. We engaged in civil discourse and I learned something. Seriously, did you digest our dialogue before you drew your conclusion about my post(s)? Frankly, you jumped to a conclusion, and having read some of your other posts, I decided to respond as I did thinking that you might realize that your interpretation was wrong. Guess not. Honestly, anyone familiar w/even a smattering of (past or present) American approaches to science/medicine involving "minorities" shouldn't be responding the way that you are. > or example, if a public figure spoke like you, nobody would doubt what they mean and they would lose their job. Guess, we'll be talking about President Pence any day now, right? Suppose, Woodrow Wilson's name will be taken off of all those schools and other buildings currently named after him, right? No more reverence for "Indian Killer" Andrew Jackson? You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is not automatically fact. Hope that clears things up for you a bit. Cheers.