Bullshit. I made an “If A then B” statement. No less than 6 people replied initially and precisely none of them said “not A”. They questioned my reasoning. Then Marley pointed out that A might be wrong at which point I conceded on the factual point immediately.
It’s a fair question. After all, you never see a Christian on Fox News who pretends to understand Muslims. Oh wait…
It’s actually not an insane question in itself. It could be a reasonable starting point for a conversation. Of course, in this case, the interview goes to hell right away.
I’m actually the most puzzled about how Green found it completely incomprehensible that a Democrat might want to write about Ronald Reagan. Apparently, she hasn’t ever set foot in a university.
I’ll say bullshit right back to you.
You, yourself, conceded that you were assuming BigT’s claim was correct. Let’s refresh your memory.
As you stated in that post that you were assuming A was correct when you made that “if A then B” statement, then it was not a simple hypothetical argument. It matters not a whit the number of other posters who failed to correctly point out the wrong assumption, it was a bad assumption.
That’s not right.
The woman mentioned they had tested the mikes going back to the analysis room because they wanted the capability to be able to go there if they wanted to. Karl Rove disagreed with their calling Ohio; so she went to ask the analysts.
Your claim requires that they knew ahead of time Ohio would go for Obama, that Karl Rove would protest it, and the analysts would stand firm. How would that further the conservative agenda?
I now return you to the topic at hand - Green obviously hadn’t read Ra’s al Ghoul’s (D) book, and was unable to adapt her questions to the content of his answers.
In all seriousness, I wonder what any Fox host’s answer to this question would be.
*No sir. Literacy is an automatic disqualifier at the job interview. *
Almost zero facts but a whole lot of “far left media” and “arrogance” and questioning his credentials. Also, “she’s a really nice person.”
Oh fer cryin out loud. I know it was an assumption. That’s why I conceded it once challenged. But your statement that people were questioning me because it was a bad assumption is flat out wrong. They weren’t questioning my assumption. Indeed, the first six posters to respond to me were working off the same assumption I was. Precisely none questioned my assumption, only my reasoning.
Put up or shut up. Quote me a single post between my first one and Marley pointing out “not A” which was questioning me because they thought “not A”.
I wonder if Mrs. Green knows if Muslims believe in Jesus?
Put up or shut up what? This is what I said.
There is no evidence that they had the same assumption.
You and the six posters were talking past each other, probably because they had didn’t share the same assumption that you did, which is that the scholar was acting is if he didn’t understand there some people would be offended.
As you acknowledge later, when you wrote that you were writing with the assumption that he was acting like he didn’t understand other people would be offended.
If A, then B" is often used in arguments when A is given so even had you not had the mistaken assumption, there would be no way for someone to immediately know that you were arguing about a logical point.
The other posters were not clear in their arguments, which Marley acknowledged, but they weren’t really arguing the point “If A then not B” either. They were arguing C, that a Muslim could write a book about Christ and be fair.
Reading your comments, they seem very critical of the author, as **Marley **also pointed out especially given that the assumption was third hand from something BigT quoted.
Am I the only one who thinks he did come off as a little arrogant? If this were a conversation at a party, and he said something like, ‘‘I have four degrees and a Ph.D. and am really hot shit, trust me,’’ I would have thought he was a bit of a tool. If someone brings up my religion, I’m not about to talk about what a distinguished scholar I am, I’m going to respond directly to the implication that my religion makes me biased. I mean, it’s not even what he said but how he said it, talking very slow, very condescending, and he repeated the same thing like three times. I almost think it would have been better if he had ignored her. I think he started off on the defensive, expecting to be raked over the coals for being a Muslim, and it made him look a bit touchy.
She was a complete bitch though. And the book does sound quite interesting.
ETA: Though I loved, LOVED, ‘‘No, that would be like a Democrat who had a Ph.D and had spent twenty years studying Republicans writing a book about Republicans.’’ That was totally warranted.
That’s not the same context. She was asking why a Muslim would write a book about Christianity and he explained that he’s a scholar of religions.
I wonder what kind of answer she was expecting, since she was so completely unprepared for a sensible one, and didn’t seem to have any kind of follow-up. Did she think he would scream, “Oh no, you busted me!”, and then disappear in a puff of smoke or something?
If you’re just having a polite conversation, than it would be a little douchey to gush about all your degrees. But that not what happened here, she wasn’t being polite; she was criticizing him. I don’t see how else he could have defended himself. Saying something banal like “it’s a free country.” Doesn’t sound very compelling. Nor is it going to help your book sales, which is the main intent of going on these book tours.
I just didn’t like the way he said it, I guess. Something rubbed me the wrong way.
For the record, the interviewer was really terrible. Not just because she was biased, but because she sounded so stupid. Just stupid. I think it’s the worst interview I’ve ever seen, for an interviewer. I’ve seen interviewees make asses of themselves a lot of times, but she takes the prize for least professional interview of all time.
He definitely was condescending, but I think it was just in response to her being so freaking dumb. YMMV
In the interviewer’s defense though, she most likely had some Fox News producers screaming in her ear, demanding that she ask the brain-dead questions and say the brain-dead things that she did. I don’t blame her; she was just a puppet.
I think Slate says that he had figured out what kind of questioning were coming.
Whether she is an idiot or her controllers are, there wasn’t a possibility of a conversation. It was a badly thought out interview. What did they expect him to do? Disavow the book?
Actually, on second thought, this would be entirely aimed at their camp, people who aren’t going to listen to reason. OMG, he’s a Muslim! And he wrote a book about our Savior! Burn him!
From Slate.