I’d dare him to describe an unfavourable ruling from Florida as from “a judge on a flaccid wang of a peninsula…”
No Man is an island.
It’s an Isle.
It’s actually a peninsula.
I have not, either – but although Honolulu is on Oahu, Oahu is not the biggest island in the state of Hawaii – as you acknowledge, Hawaii (the island) is the biggest island of Hawaii (the state). On the other hand, Oahu is the most populous. But Hawaii (the island) is the second-most populous, with three perfectly viable hospitals.
So – I didn’t start a thread claiming there was a mistake. You did. You cannot – even in MPSIMS – logically then demand I prove you wrong; that’s the fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratiam. It’s for you to prove the truth of your claim. Right now, the OP suggests that someone said something factually in error, but the best evidence you have is that you “hazard a guess” that one of Sessions’ granddaughters was born on Oahu and not the island of Hawaiʻi.
I hazard a guess you have not supported your claim.
Clearly he is channelling Dan Quayle. Although Quayle did manage to identify Hawaii as a part of the US…
The error was not in the denotative meaning of anything he said, but in the connotative implications. What he said was that the judge was on an island in the Pacific, which is correct. But what he implied was that the judge was on a mere island in the Pacific, which is incorrect: Hawaii (in either sense of the term) is not a mere island: It’s an island (or group of islands) which happens to be a state (or major part of a state) of the United States, legally equal to any of the other 49 states of the United States, and home to judges that have just as much legal power in the government of the United States as any other location in our nation.
Ah, heck. I just came in here to say that I’ve just been browsing the latest news updates on this subject, and no one but me seems to be making the distinction between the State of Hawaii and the island of Hawaii, even the justifiably incensed Hawaiian reps. So clearly, my focus is misplaced. No one (but me, stickler for language that I am) cares that the collective islands are being referred to as one island.
Having said that, let me me note that you said I was “complaining about the accuracy of a comment that is in fact accurate.” So, you have made a factual claim. Why is it not logical for me to ask for proof of this? I’m not asking you to prove me wrong (I admit that i don’t know the answer). I’m asking YOU to prove YOU right.
Anyway, it seems that neither of us knows where the heck she was born. Unless she was born on the Big Island, Prior’s comment was geographically inaccurate. And no one with an ounce of perspective cares much. Can we agree there are three true statements in this paragraph?
.
OK, OK - Hawaii isn’t an island, and it isn’t in the Pacific. And if you have a pineapple farm there, you didn’t grow that.
And Don Ho isn’t a judge.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m fairly certain that Sessions hasn’t gotten used to the fact that slavery is no longer legal, and may well dispute the authority of the judiciary and Congress over the Confederate States of America that he represents. I would wager that if you were at a party with him he’d corner you after three drinks and go on an semi-coherent screed about how the American Civil War never ended, and Lincoln wasn’t a legitimate president.
Stranger
I suppose you think you are making a point with all this nonsense. Whatever.
Don’t forget the part about how the war was really about states’ rights and was the “War of Northern Aggression.”
Cite?
:dubious:
See post 26.
So this anger is all about…island vs. islands? That’s it?
No. The anger is dismissing Hawaii as less than an equal part of the Union. And not understanding the role of the federal courts. And being part of this clusterfuck administration.
The statement was not accurate. You cannot parse the accuracy of a statement without reading it in context. The context is to remove the statehood and legitimacy of a judge because he lives in Hawaii. Hawaii is not merely an island in the Pacific, but an equal State of the United States, and its judges are equal to every other judge.
In fact, what you said after this part I quoted is exactly the same thing being said by everyone else. Those aspects make his claim inaccurate.
I do not get your desire to try and start fights over minutia if you do not support this administration. If you do, then I get it. That’s why I suspect Shodan does what he does. But you don’t.
Session’s statement was no more accurate than people who read the Bible literally get an accurate interpretation. The context matters in evaluating accuracy. If not, you could claim the Bible is wrong because the Creation story is a myth.
“I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the President of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and Constitutional power.”
Emphasis added. There is nothing factually incorrect about that. I could refer to a Wash. State judge as someone “up in the Northwest”, and that would also be accurate. There is nothing that requires us to refer to the state that a specific judge resides in, and it’s especially less important if he is a federal judge, ruling on a federal issue.
The judge could have been standing.
I believe that the whole part over the island bit is just pedantry and nitpicking, focused on that phrase because that phrase is rather dismissive of not just the judge, but of the state upon which he sits.
But, removing that particular phrase leaves us with “I really am amazed that a judge can issue an order…” which means that our attorney general is amazed at the checks and balances in the constitution that he is supposed to be defending.
Do you understand the concept of the genetic fallacy? The truth of a statement is independent of who makes it.
I didn’t vote for Obama. Do you think therefore that I ought not to care if someone says he is from Kenya?
Regards,
Shodan