Sonia Sotomayor 0, white people 1

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It is not ignored at all.



What was she talking about aramike?
What are you ridiculously claiming she was talking about?


Even when it it is surrounded by conditionals.
Even when it doesn't mean what you claim it means and isn't even about what you think it is.
Read the statement again and try and understand why it cannot possibly mean what you claim it means .





What specificly is she talking about?

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that part of Tribesman's MO - use copious amounts of to disguise the fact that he has no idea what he's talking about.

To quote KSII (who you claim to not have ignored):

I see Sotomayor constantly alluding there will be differences in how different cultures or genders will interpret cases (the fact that they are different IMPLIES a high probability that one side's interpretation will be "better", since the idea of their quality being equal is extremely unlikely), then it is topped off by her letting us know WHICH side is going to make "better" conclusions "more often than not".

Oh lookie: CONTEXT.

[Aramike]

Kinda back on topic, my chief problem with Sotomayor is that she seems to drag the issue of race everywhere she goes.

I believe that someone on the Supreme Court of the US should NEVER look at skin color and/or heritage when judging a case, or even characterizing a person. There is nothing more irrelevent to someone's actions and qualifications than the tone of their skin.

There is nothing more irrelevent to someone's actions and qualifications than the tone of their skin.

You demonstrate that you havn't the faintest idea what you are talking about, you also demonstrate that you don't know what Soto was talking about .
Not surprising really.

Oh lookie: CONTEXT.

Why does that word baffle you ?
Its a simple word to understand, just like quote and fact are simple to understand

[Aramike]

You demonstrate that you havn't the faintest idea what you are talking about, you also demonstrate that you don't know what Soto was talking about .
Not surprising really.

In the post you just quoted I wasn't referring only to the Sotomayor speech in question. Didn't understand the context, huh?

Why does that word baffle you ?
Its a simple word to understand, just like quote and fact are simple to understand

It doesn't. You're the one saying that the context is different than what it is agreed to be, by nearly everyone here, the media, the White House, and - guess who - Sotomayor! http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ple-occasions/

I refuse to discuss this further with someone who's disillusioned enough to actually believe that everyone else is wrong (including the originator of the quote) and he's right. She said a sentence. It meant what it said. In the context of the paragraph, it STILL meant what it said. No one but you is arguing context, and you're making a fool out of yourself by insisting upon doing so. Her speech may have made a couple of contradicting points regarding this, but that doesn't change the context - that just means she was poorly communicating her point (which she has since stated).

That's all I have to say on this subject. The proof is there, and the fact that it was a poor choice of words, and NOT context, is the explanation from the originator of the quote herself.

Game. Set. Match.

In the post you just quoted I wasn't referring only to the Sotomayor speech in question. Didn't understand the context, huh?

And in each case she has been refering to one specific thing.
Thats called context.

You're the one saying that the context is different than what it is agreed to be

Come on Aramike its an easy question , what was she talking about?
Is the fact that if you actually answer that question your whole line of "reasoning" falls apart what is holding you up ?
Or is it that you simply can't answer the question?

I refuse to discuss this further with someone who's disillusioned enough to actually believe that everyone else is wrong (including the originator of the quote)

Since she never said it meant what you said it meant then you are just showing your lack of comprehension again.

She said a sentence. It meant what it said.

Yes she did , but you cannot understand what it meant or what it was about which is where the problem arises.

and the fact that it was a poor choice of words, and NOT context

Congratulations , you just shot yourself in the foot.

[Aramike]

Sure, buddy.

Anyone who makes sense want to talk about this?

[Platapus]

Well did not take long for this thread to bottom out.

[Onkel Neal]

Yeah but it's funny!

[SteamWake]

Its a shame really.

Seems like a couple of people got into a epeen measuring contest and totally lost sight of the issue at hand.

Personally I recognize futility when I see it.

But thats buisness as usuall around here it seems.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Its a shame really.

Seems like a couple of people got into a epeen measuring contest and totally lost sight of the issue at hand.

Personally I recognize futility when I see it.

But thats buisness as usuall around here it seems.

Hey man, I do what I can to kill time when the workload is light.

But yeah, at some point I should stop responding to the guy pointing at the sky insisting that it's purple, as it is useless to keep arguing with such a person.

But yeah, at some point I should stop responding to the guy pointing at the sky insisting that it's purple

Yeah right

http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Purple...htm?aid=974174
wow the sky is purple. Must be a vision problem you have as well as a reading one

Anyone who makes sense want to talk about this?

It would be nice, after all it is just a simple question that you can't answer.
Its funny when a wingnut gets all PC about a statement that doesn't merit it

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Come on Aramike its an easy question , what was she talking about?
Is the fact that if you actually answer that question your whole line of "reasoning" falls apart what is holding you up ?
Or is it that you simply can't answer the question?

Or maybe you should be the one explaining this "context" to us to grab the win?

[Buddahaid]

"Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life".

The assumption in that sentence implies that:
1. The wise Latina's life experience trumps a white males life experience in most cases.
2. A wise white male with the richness of his life experience would more often than not reach a worse conclusion than Latina woman who hasn't lived that life.

So, as a white male, clearly my life experience is of little value. I lose again because of the color of my skin, and gender. It is a racist remark!
Buddahaid

[Aramike]

Whoa, whoa, fellas ... remember, you're taking the sentence out of context. The sentence doesn't actually mean what the words say it means because at some point there may have been another point that can be interpretted to contradict it.

Just kidding. That's not how language works.

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

"Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life".

The assumption in that sentence implies that:
1. The wise Latina's life experience trumps a white males life experience in most cases.
2. A wise white male with the richness of his life experience would more often than not reach a worse conclusion than Latina woman who hasn't lived that life.

So, as a white male, clearly my life experience is of little value. I lose again because of the color of my skin, and gender. It is a racist remark!
Buddahaid

Or maybe it means that in a panel of pretty much old, white men a latino woman would bring the variety that would enrich that panel.