False equivalence. Some employees may feel pressured into giving into their bosses’ sexual advances; some may make an informed decision to have a relationship with their boss.
In any event, there is no pressure to submit to the sexual advances of a “star.” If Neve Campbell asked or even pressured me to have sex with her, I could freely tell her to get lost. (although I would not do so. I would gladly submit.)
He assumes that some are good people. Therefore only some are rapists. They are not all rapists or else there would be no good people.
It seems like with Trump, the left will parse every single word he says, create an ambiguity if necessary, and then exploit the ambiguity in the worst possible (not probable) light for Trump.
“When you’re famous,” doesn’t mean the same thing as “When you’re their boss.” He didn’t say, “When you’re their boss.” Did he?
This is absolutely inaccurate. I chided him for one of two things: EITHER removing the implied “some,” or, if he didn’t agree there was an implied “some,” (as you appear to argue) then for complaining about Trump’s accurate observation: illegal immigrant Mexicans are rapists in at least two cases I can cite. Unless you want to argue there was an implied “ALL,” in Trump’s statement, in which case I can rebut that by pointing to the “some good people,” which rules it out.
Doesn’t “some” means a minority of a group? I always thought that the problem was that indeed Trump told us that the vast majority of Mexicans were rapists and bad hombres.
‘They are sending people that have lots of problems. … They are sending their rapists. Some of the people they are sending are good people.’
Is it really that much of a stretch? It’s not like Trump is a brilliant orator. He’s a nincampoop who probably goes off the cuff. I never found it plausible that Trump was accusing all Mexicans immigrating of being rapists. That would be raising the bar for dumbness even for Trump. Don’t get me wrong, even if that’s what he meant it’s still colossally stupid. But it seems to me plausible, and more consistent with his brand of stupidity.
As I noted before, the trouble (for me even that took place) was that he should had said “most” instead of “some”. It sounds to me more like a retelling of the justifications made before from convicted racial profilers like Joe Arpaio.
I agree with you there, except none of my scenarios portrayed Bob actively being violent at the present moment so no, you don’t have the right to hit him.
While it is an employers right to fire them I wish they could get educated instead, because just like radical Muslims unemployed people are probably worse for society than employed ones. And firing someone with racist thoughts will just teach them to not share those racist thoughts, but they will still be thinking them and the ideas live on, hidden.
I don’t think he meant “all Mexican immigrants are rapists”. I do think he meant something on the order of “Mexican immigrants include a very high number of rapists”, which is an extremely bigoted (and false) thing to say, IMO.
I sincerely hope you two understand that there is a difference between Trump believing women wanting to be grabbed by the pussy by powerful men and women actually wanting to be grabbed by the pussy by powerful men.
And as k9bfriender noted Trump did not say “some are rapists”.
Even if he did are you suggesting that since “some” can be anything from one to all Mexicans minus one that we should assume he just meant one?
Then you did not go over it very well.
As for abortion I am wondering if you are trying to gaslight me because try as I might I cannot see where I mentioned abortion in post #104.
And if you are a contestant on Miss Universe, and the owner of that pageant comes up and molests you, do you let him?
If you are on the apprentice, and the star of the apprentice grabs you by the pussy, do you let him?
These are power imbalances, and the women are “letting him” not because they are star struck by his charisma, but because they are afraid that if they don’t, then he will retaliate by harming their chances of advancement.
He assume “some” are good people, therefore, most are rapists.
The “some” qualifier come on “good people”, which means that the default is the rapist and criminal, and the exception is the “good people”.
No, he says pretty horrible things. Things that if nearly anyone else in the world said, you’d rightly excoriate them.
But when it is trump, for some reason, a ned is found to twist his words into a pretzel in order to remove the hate.
There is NO ambiguity in his statement. His statement is very specifically that the majority of people who come from mexico are rapists, criminals and drug dealers. It is the right that wants to interject ambiguity into the statements in order to defend them without getting their plain meaning all over themselves.
Do you think he has no influence over the career of a young actress?
Do you think that he has never used that influence in order to act in inappropriate ways towards women that he had influence over?
If there is any implication, there is an implied “most” in trump’s statement. The first statement stands on its own. That the people that mexico is sending us are drug dealers, criminals and rapists. Then, as an afterthought, he mentions that there are “some” who come here that are good people.
So, if you are happy with parsing Trump’s statement as “Most of them are criminals. Most of them are drug dealers. Most of them are rapists. Some of them are good people.” Then I will agree that that is an accurate parsing of what he said, though I would continue to disagree with it.
If you are trying to parse it as “There are a few drug dealers, a few criminals, and a few rapists mixed in with an overwhelming majority of good people.” then, while I would agree with the statement, I would not agree at all that you can get that statement out of the words that trump actually used.
Even if we concede your point that he said that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are rapists, criminals, etc., that is not a racist statement. He did not say that all Mexicans or all Hispanics are rapists. He said that those particular Mexicans crossing the border are rapists. That may be true or it may be false, but it is not racist because he is not making a statement about the unique qualities of a race, only those particular members of that race taking a certain action.
If I say that those guys two streets over (who are all white guys) are nothing but a bunch of criminals and thugs, nobody would suggest that I am saying that all white people are criminals and thugs. This is my point: everything is a gotcha with Trump.
The reason why many do realize Trump is very likely a racist is not only thanks to that statement. It is thanks to the additions of many other statements, testimony and past history.
Since the latest reports I saw show that indeed most crossing the border are not rapists that also points to what I have seen what racism is, it is really the accumulation of lots of ignorant information and misleading information from dubious sources.
Nope, you are still making the basic mistake of assuming Trump is smart enough to do that. What we have here is an effort to explain away his reprehensible ideas.
That’s not what he said. You may believe that is what he meant. But I’m addressing Whack-a-Mole’s claim of factual accuracy in repeating Trump’s thoughts.
No. The word “some” is not an antonym of “most.”
Incorrect. The word “some” does not mean “not default.”
You are factually wrong. I have previously provided a link to the meaning of the word some, and I’ll do so again: Here it is.
Do you think most gems are soft?
“Some angles are acute and some angles are obtuse.” Apparently you believe that these are the minority, and we are overrun with right angles?
Who cares? The debate is what factually Trump said, not what I believe about the idiot.
Why is it impossible for me to point out an error in someone’s attack on Trump without having to adopt a defense-in-depth of all things Trumpian?
Sure you can. Start by looking up what the word “some” means.