I guess I should apologize for giving you too much credit. You admit you 1) don’t stand by the words you used: “And the real problem is…”. And you 2)admit you phrased what you intended to say badly. Most people who would get through 1 & 2 would then grant that other interpretations are possible. And that if someone goes through the effort to ask a queston based directly on the phrase you used, seeking clarification, that said interpretation was reasonable.
But maybe you think it’s not. So let’s hear it. Please explain why the interpretation is unreasonable. Please be specific. How would one be able to devine that your particular position ended before it got as exrtreme as the words you used, when you actually used those words?
I think you have a solid position, supported by many facts. To say that you bring no bias whatsoever to the discussion I’d say goes too far. We all do.
Most of the posters agree with your position and are wont to give a little extremism on their side (as we all are) a pass. Some might not have noticed it at all. Some might have even taken it the way I did and have no problem with that position, as they agree with it. I can’t speak for them. Only for me.
It was not out of context. It broadened the debate It was at he beginning of a paragraph at the end of the post using a phrase that is often used in summation.
Wrong. I was simply asking for clarification before I entered the debate. But maybe you find that “unreasobnable”, as well. As I pointed out, all you had to do was clarify it, which was incumbent upon you to do. That’s how we, you know, communicate.
Wrong again. First your general position may have been accuratley summarized by Miller, but the particular passage and paragraph I questioned wasn’t. And I tried to simply convey to Miller that he could not answer as to your intent, as he was not you. He refused to let it die and wait for you to share the degree to which the words you wrote accurately expressed your sentiments. If I appeared short with Miller, that is between he and I. It has nothing to do with what you wrote or my interpretation of it.
There are from five to six thousand people employed as private contract firefighters in the U.S., almost all of them employed by about a hundred firms that are offshoots or subsidiaries of lumber/forestry concerns in Oregon and Washington. The workers are paid 10-15 dollars/hour when they’re working (nothing when they’re idle) and rented out all over the West and Southwest for about twice that (except in California, which doesn’t like the system). These workers are organized into 20-man crews, so there are about 250-300 crew leaders. It’s these 300 guys whose “careers” as temporary contract labor work gang straw bosses duffer has been mourning ever since he first discovered their existence yesterday. An unknown number of them may suffer because of a regulation that says they must be able to communicate with their crews, which are largely new immigrants (and many migrant workers, which isn’t exactly unusual in seasonal contract labor) with limited English. As a result, those bosses who don’t speak Spanish will have to learn some in order to retain or regain their positions, and education/certification programs have been set up to help them do this.
The connection to the OP’s original thesis is obvious: somebody might lose a job, and there are immigrants involved somehow. However, despite duffer’s use of the words “can’t” or “won’t,” there’s no evidence that these workers are refusing to or unable to learn English. Granted, they’re probably not studying much while making firebreaks, but since they’re spending up to 100 hours a week saving lives and property at great personal risk, I’ll accept their excuses until wildfire season is over. So duffer’s lost contact with the truth again (remember, though, his insistance that he’s not a bigot must be taken as Gospel, as it’s in no way connected to the falsehoods he scatters about while he’s defaming immigrants).
'Course, it’s important to remember that these jobs are still going to perfectly nice upstanding people who are required to speak English too, so it’s not as if anybody’s being rewarded except maybe some of those Spanish-speaking immigrants who have worked hard to learn English – you know, the ones duffer says he likes and admires so much – or native English speakers who don’t have a phobia about learning and speaking Spanish. So what’s the problem, exactly?
Meanwhile, it’s still idiotic to bemoan a business’s decision to market to or employ recent immigrants: duffer’s admirable ancestors did not sit and live off their fat until they all learned English. Nor is it novel or a crime that, whether for profit or safety’s sake, the employees of a business might be expected to learn a new skill to gain promotion or even to retain their jobs: if the skill involved didn’t also benefit recent immigrants as well as the businesses involved, there would be no pitting.
Moreover, there’s a much bigger threat to these guys’ “careers” than the language barrier. New methods of timber management, and the ever-present threat of rain, could soon create a dire shortage of fires. The lack of even one good conflagration could cost hundreds of jobs. Do your part, everyone: grab a match and head for the hills.
And Magellan01, you asked a question and got an answer, whether you liked it or not. Now behave yourself or I’ll send some foreigners over to shake hands with your daughter.
A) Unfounded accusations made by duffer against some recent Spanish-speaking immigrants: (1) that they don’t want to assimilate into their new country; (2) that they refuse to learn English,; (3) that they expect other, English-speaking Americans to accomodate them; (4) that previous generations of European immigrants were better in terms of their ability or willingness to assimilate by learning English; (5) that companies that seek to maximize profit by pursuing Spanish-speaking customers or bilingual employees are blameworthy; (6) that monolingual English-speakers are unfairly losing their jobs; (7) that there are lobbying groups seeking to create a Spanish-tolerant majority; (8) that duffer is not, in fact, the apotheosis of a family of insane, arsonist cannibals. (9) Just kidding, sort of, about #8. In spite of everything, though, he does insist (and I hope that we all believe him, no matter how untrue everything else he says turns out to be) that he is not a bigot.
B) Proof: none. (A) In spite of the fact that duffer probably wet his pants over the Oregon firefighter article that appeared two days after his anti-immigrant screed, it shows no evidence in favor of his OP, and, of course, neither did anything else. Magellan01’s busting onto the stage with the compelling “But what if the lies were true, huh? What then?” had about as much impact as a sane man might expect.
C) Retractions. None, but still pending. After all, duffer might someday want to post with a modicum of credibility again. And given the way this thread went, it’s far from certain that he can again rely on the benefit of the doubt that some posters have shown (see post #54). The theory that a person has been cured of ignorance just because they are temporarily quiet (post #58) is too often disproved (post #64) and the gentle admonition (post #86) that, if one is not and wishes not to be taken for, say, a duck, it would behoove them to no waddle around quacking at the top of their lungs, is too often ignored.
Finally, duffer, I’d just like to say I’d be happy to subsidize your high-school re-education. Just promise me that you won’t disrupt the Pledge of Allegiance, and that, in addition to Spanish, you’ll sit quietly through the civics class that teaches you that we’re a nation of immigrants, capable of aborbing all comers without fear nor favor. I don’t expect anything much, but then, neither did your great-great-great grandmother, and look how well that turned out.
Somehow I missed this post. Thought I’d answer it now, late as it may be.
This is not correct. The position conveyed in that last paragraph would be a more extreme one for his side of the debate. That stopping the repeating of claims from the other side was more important than even the veracity of those claims. As in: “The real problem is…”
Incorrect. Here is the sentence: “His words did, infact, convey an extremist sentiment, which is why he has now separated himself from the sentiment conveyed by his words.”
Again, reread what he wrote. Pay particular attention to the segue beginning the last paragraph: “But the real problem is…” That implies that what preceded it may have been problematic, but that what comes after it is the real heart of the problem. And since he has said that he didn’t intend to convey the sentiment I asked him about, which is more extreme thatn the one he evidently holds, he therefore has separated himself from the sentiment conveyed by his words. Which brings us back to my first reply in this post.
I’ll say it one more time: You did not comment on the the beginning of the paragraph which was the source of the problem. You ignored those words. When he finally commented on them he stated that he phrased things poorly and did not intend to convey the sentiment I saw in those words, and maintain are inherent in those words. You may have been correct in what he intended. But until he came and explained what he did, you’re explanation was a guess, albeit a good one.
What? While we may disagree where on the “reasonable continuum” my reading falls, to say that it is not accurate is nonsense. Please, tell me, if at the end of a post in which I make many points on an issue I start a paragraph with the words “But the real problem is…”, what can you say of what follows? I maintain that an accurate *and *reasonable answer is that what follows is what I view to be the most important or heart of the problem. Do you disagree with that? If so, please explain in detail.
Here.
You chose to simply ignore the words that started off the paragraph. I did not. I assumed thet were there for a reason. I will continue to read what posters write and assume that the words did not appear randomly. I’m amazed that you can’t or refuse to see the sense—the reasonableness—of this.
Sigh. Okay, explain the meaning of these words to me: “But the real problem is…”
For the “logical sense” part, see above.
If there was some annoyance on my part it was because you once again tried to mind read. You had done that to me in a recent thread concerning SSM and you’ve done it before (I can’t recall the exact incident). Others have done it, as well. I find it highly annoying. It makes debating much more difficult when one is arguing against words that have not been written. (And ignores those that have.) I admit to frustration. These boards are considerbaly left of where I stand on many things. But I enjoy hearing the other side and challenging their views (pardon the cockeyed optimism) as they challenge mine. This is also why I do not participate in any conservative boards. The threshold for a conservative position is higher here than one for the left, and I’m fine with that. It’s also easy to find oneself the object of a pile on. And I can even tolerate that. But lately I’ve been asked to fight dishonesty and dishonorable debating tactics, as well. And now when the discussion gets soooo hung up over a single fucking question that I ask in good faith, to have to go through all this bullshit, well, just fuck it. I know I can leave any time and probably will pretty soon, as the experience has become increasiongly unenjoyable. I also know that I will miss the boards more than they will miss me, so if it gets to that point everyone will be happy. I’ll probably wind up being more productive in my other endeavors, so it’ll be win-win-win.
I still don’t know what type of agenda you are talking about. Seriously. Can you use another word other than agenda? Maybe that would help. Do you mean my position concerning speaking Spanish in the U.S.? Immigration? But there not agendas…
All in all, Miller, I’ll simply request that you read my initial post and the post that instigated it with an open mind. You don’t even need to respond. Let’s just leave it at that.