My side is not responsible for its nuts, and you know the rest.
Regards,
Shodan
A poll.
“Far more blame “the far right groups” for Charlottesville (46%) than “the counter-protesters” (9%), but a remarkable 40% concur with Trump’s assertion that both were equally responsible.”
So - 49% of those asked either thought that both sides are equally responsible or that the “counter-protesters” were responsible.
Why would a poll of people who have no idea what actually happened be of any interest in determining what actually happened?
I feel like you’re so rigidly stuck on your schtick (which convinces no one of anything positive) that you’re genuinely unaware that you prove my point every time you post.
Though I suspect your only real target audience is yourself, to convince yourself how clever you are, mocking their partisanship by being as rigidly locked into your own as anyone on this planet.
You would almost be an enigma if it weren’t so boring.
Polls measure perception, not facts. “Both sides are the same!” (which is the topic of this thread) is a perception.
The poll actually shows that it is mostly Republicans the ones that have the problem. You are actually finding evidence that indeed both sides are not the same.
There has been a basic understanding of the human intellect at least as old as ancient Greece, that There is an external world we may be able to understand and communicate to each other about.
And at last we turn to the crux of the Crisis. That ancient Greek ideal is now obsolete. If Trump tells the 38% that Naziism is good, then Naziism is good for that 38%. There are no longer any objective standards of morality or truth, as the Greeks thought. That Eastern mystic Whatshisname was right all along. Only perception exists. Thus, polls tell us more truth than do obsolescent practices like science or history.
No, he is finding whatever evidence he wants to find. Similarly, whether climate science is valid or just Al Gore’s wet dream is no longer an objective question. It may be considered an objective question in backwards Europe, with no Bill of Rights, but America has liberated itself from the constraining notion of objective truth.
Welcome to our Brave New World.
I’ll close with the following, which is exactly as “true” as every other post in this thread.
I would refute it thus, but the last time I did that, I hurt my foot.
Alas, like people going to faith healers, America will learn that there is an objective truth, and, while you can pretend it isn’t there, it really is.
[QUOTE=marshmallow]
Universe brain: Democrats being mean to Bork turned Republicans into Nazis.
[/QUOTE]
That Brave world look a lot like the past ones.
Disneys' 1943 Education for death (What makes a Nazi)By then it was clear who was going to die, not just the enemies of the Nazis, but all the followers of that reprehensible ideology. There is a reason why one has to warn the ones that even appear to support that ideology and to oppose the ones that actually fall for it.
This thread is about a sweeping generalization that is simply impossible to prove. Your anecdote, as noted By GIGO, only shows that for this particular issue (out of the thousands or millions of issues out there), two of the sides are measurably different.
Look at Trump’s comments in context. Would you not agree that “some, I assume, are good people” implies that the majority are rapists, drug dealers, etc.?
Only if “some” always means a minority. Can you point to the definition of the word “some” in some dictionary that means “a minority”?
From Webster online: being one, a part, or an unspecified number of something (such as a class or group) named or implied - “some gems are hard”
If someone says “some gems are hard”, does that imply that the majority of gems are soft?
Are any gems soft? It thought they were all pretty hard.
Quite a number of gems are soft. If we counted them all up, it’s possible that there are more soft gems than hard.
Yep, it kind of does. The definition of the word is fuzzy, but if the group of things is large, it means that you’re talking about a minority. If you don’t believe me, wait until somebody says “have some” while they offer you chips or cookies or something, and then take two thirds of them for yourself. Cue the dirty looks.
“I think every director has a different take, some are good, some are bad. The directors you get on best with sometimes don’t make the best films, so who’s to say who is right.” Tim Roth
Does “some” mean a minority in the phrase above? What about the other “some”?
Yes to both. He is avoiding establishing which condition prevails as the majority. (As one might also infer from the sentence immediately following.)
Yet one has to be a majority.
That’s not actually true - he might have had a broad ‘so-so’ category in mind occupying the excluded middle. But in any case, even if there must be a majority, he did not mention one.
Obviously.
As I already said, “some” doesn’t imply minority or majority, so you’re correct. But by the same brush, “some” does not always imply minority.