I can’t speak for CannyDan, but I pointed out your mistake because that tactic seems to be so near and dear to your own heart.
A case in point:
If I may paraphrase how this sounds…
“I never said they should be given their rights more slowly, just that they should exercise them more slowly. That you would stoop so low and post such an outrageous lie about my stated position shows I must be…”
No, it doesn’t. It seems to be just a way of distracting from the real substance of an argument. When someone challenges you on something, you don’t try to get to the heart of the issue, you don’t try to see how your original wording could have been misinterpreted, you just latch on to any discrepancy as if it proved your correctness. Ah, but when someone points out one of your own mistakes, you had five other things to do and it was so trivial it didn’t matter anyway. You don’t get to have it both ways.
Herein lies the value of the word mincers and defenders, as few as they may be (although my Sith model of there always being just one turns out to be wrong*). Although I suppose that SA is so deluded and demented that he probably doesn’t need any cover in order to persist unabated. Direct quotes, inherent contradictions, near universal revulsion do not seem to phase him in the least - he still will claim “winning.”
In searching for past posts, I found threads where both Zoe and olivesmarchforth were speaking up in his defense.
The problem is that your paraphrase is inaccurate in its assumptions. I’ve NEVER SAID THAT BLACK PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THEIR RIGHTS MORE SLOWLY. (And I never said they got the bends from it either. Hector lied and said I did, and then lied again and said he didn’t. Why don’t you care about Hector’s lies? They, ahem, lie at the base of all our posts about what he says.)
Black people’s rights were established through legislation to ensure they couldn’t be discriminated against and denied housing, employment, a place in the bus or a seat at the diner.
Forced busing on the other hand is not a right, and yet again I’m finding myself having to make this distinction despite the fact that I’ve explained it already.
Now you people may choose to regard such practices as forced busing and affirmative action to be giving them their rights, but in the cold light of day it just ain’t so.
No, I proposed it in the context of challenging the notion that a naked hug in the shower was as bad as anal rape.
There is 100% nothing wrong with talking about lining up 100 boys. They could be lined up to attend a sporting event, a ride at Disneyland, or to a attend a concert.
So there’s nothing inherently wrong with the phrasing.
Not only that, but I didn’t talk about lining them up myself, I suggested to a woman that she do it as part of a thought experiment to illustrate to her the ludicrousness of what she’d just said.
Plus we have the fact that whole thing was hypothetical and existed wholly in the realm of imagination in the first place and there was zero chance that anyone was ever going to be asking any kids any of the things I suggested.
What the fuck makes you think you’re a normal person?
Nope, don’t think so. I made it obvious that the altered quote was not his original comment. I believe the ban on altering quotes is in regard to restating a poster’s words in order to make it look like he genuinely made the altered remark.
The problem here is that in the Paterno thread my opponents were suffering to such ick factor when it came to their own suppositions about what Sandusky said. They were perfectly happy to talk about all sorts of gross stuff when making their own accusations or imagining things to get outraged about.
I definitely think you’re on to something here. I’m constantly amazed at the way some of you people take things. It simply never occurred to me that anyone would think the cardboard tubes were stand-in child anuses or that to line kids up in order to ask them questions would carry lascivious implications. To my mind the people who react in such a way are being deliberately dishonest and taking their stance just to stir up shit and try to create bias against me.
And of course the fact that Hector has heretofore been the primary if not only poster who found lasciviousness in the lining up the kids thing, that was one more factor tipping things in my mind toward intentional dishonesty and disingenuousness.
“I never said they should be given their rights more slowly,…”
It’s the ALL CAPS, isn’t it; I’m misrepresenting you and proving my mendacity by not paraphrasing you in ALL CAPS.
As to civil rights, where do you stand on George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door to block the entry of two African-American students? Should Kennedy have mobilized the National Guard to guarantee them access, or should we have said they have the right to attend, but we’d prefer they wait and do it in a more natural way?
And now I’m going to have to leave. I have a busy couple days going on right now and have to tend to more important things, so Hector, you’re free to lie your ass off for now. Just know that the discriminating mind not already in league with you can see right through you.
Don’t forget incremental, stepwise and sensible. As in, “what happens to a dream achieved after a sensible, incremental fashion…”
Is this a bad time to point out that he also originally included women in his musings about who in the 60’s should have achieved equality in a more sensible and incremental fashion?