Quote:
|
Even Aramike noticed that his interpretation was contradicted in the statement , but his mind works in funny ways and seems to think that a contradiction is a comfirmation.
|
Umm, learn to comprehend, please - especially the meaning of the word "context".
See, the funny thing about words is that they exist to convey thoughts. Take "contradiction", for example. That means (among other things) that someone presents multiple statements that are at odds with one another. The reason the term exists is because their are contradictions, and those contradictions do not cancel one another out due to context.
There is little doubt that she wasn't attempting to make a racist statement. But, nevertheless, that statement IS RACIST.
Ultimately, the "context" (at least according to your absurdly foolish definition of it) of the statement would depend upon what ideas in the speech you intend upon framing it within, as Sotomayor never qualified the statement itself.
Seriously - this is fourth grade English. Not to mention, even Sotomayor herself is attempting to retract the statement, and not clarify its context.
A poorly-worded statement's meaning is not changed because it is contradictory, by the way.
In any case, I don't really have too big of a problem with the statement by itself in the first place, however. My problem is when you take that statement, and put it into the context (this is an appropriate use of the term, by the way) of her typical judicial rulings regarding race, a pattern emerges.