@tomsdesk said:
Rick, it's all good...and, intended as an act of reconciliation, please let me explain myself further: Sorry, but I find this recurring theme
@rickw said:
...it's because you misunderstood something I said...
to be
@rickw said:
...petty insinuation...baiting, condescending...
whether justified (or not 
). Thus my
@tomsdesk said:
This would be the pot calling the kettle black IMO.
(BTW this falls nicely into that "confusion" of mine as well:
@rickw said:
So, you're asking for the phrase-by-phrase analysis? 
...
) 
Regarding the misunderstandings: I wasn't trying to blame, but there have clearly been some disconnects between what I said and what you replied with. Whether it was not clear in my writing, or it was emotion surrounding the issue, or something else, well, it's all water under the bridge. But since that last quote was so offensive, I removed it. I put it in there as an attempt at lighthearted humor both because your response had nothing to do with arguing my analysis and because "affirming the consequent" (which you highlighted) is the converse, not the inverse, of a statement.
Statement: If A, then B (assumed to be true)
Converse: If B, then A ("affirming the consequent")
Inverse: If not A, then not B ("denying the antecedent")
Contrapositive: If not B, then not A
@tomsdesk said:
I do admit, though there probably is no need to do so as obvious as it must be, I am more than a little sensitive about the hyjacking of political discourse using truncated sound bites and dissected partial truths autopsied into grossly inacurate generalizations...especially when classic fallacies of logic and rhetoric are employed. But I meant nothing personal, so if my angst improperly implied such, I do appologize.
One more jab, eh? Fine, but it is a strange "act of reconciliation" to apparently label my expression of a view divergent from yours as "hijacking" and any arguments that trumped yours as "fallacies of logic". I constantly research, reference, and link to articles, not to "sound bites." I also showed how my comment related to the issue at large. You're entitled to your opinion, fallacies and all - but I meant nothing personal, so if it came across that way, I too apologize. You may have the last jab. Or, if we're done with jabs, then by all means explain specifically the fallacy in logic.
@tomsdesk said:
As for myself, the only thing said that offended me personally, as opposed to my intellegence 
, were the names called: the looney "liberal" because of the man I chose to be best for these times; and the flaming "left-winger" because of how I apply my personal ethic and morals to the couple of issues discussed here lately.
Tom, I don't recall ever calling anyone here any names (though I may have stated my opinion of their actions or statements) - it's just not something I do when discussing issues. If you can point to evidence of me calling you a name, I'll gladly retract and offer my most humble apologies. Or perhaps that wasn't directed at me?
@tomsdesk said:
Though this:
@rickw said:
...Ultimate conclusion: the author advocates electing a candidate based on his race so as to bring about "redemption"...
is still an inaccurate conclusion based on the entire article, and unfounded still by your autopsy of the dissected paragraph. IMO
I never claimed my analysis was about the whole article, or even based on the whole article, and that appears to be another example of misunderstanding. I've said several times that my critique was about the referenced paragraph, and it's an accurate conclusion regardless of the whole article. I didn't say the whole article advocated electing Obama because of race (though there are hints of that in other parts of the article), just commenting how the author slipped that into a story that was ostensibly about the world's interest in the election. Unless you can manage to show that the author doesn't claim America needs "redemption" which can happen by electing a "young black man", the analysis stands.
Of course, as I said in a previous post, it's all moot now. We're redeemed, and it's all lollipops and rainbows from here on out, since Obama will now solve all our problems for us.
Peace,
