« on: January 15, 2006, 12:22:07 PM »
And what lazy, non-common sense thinking do you think Galt has engaged in? Everything he said made a lot of sense.
Your thinking seems to be the most hackneyed of anyone's on here.
1. By his own later admission, he took the reasons that people were making for what happened and decided to call them excuses. In doing so - by definition - he implied that people were implying that what happened was OK. that is what excuses do; they excuse. That seems, at least to the untrained ear, alarmingly insulting to those people's line of argument and to their motives.
2. The rest of it is as I have explained in my post on that subject.
I'd be interested in knowing what exactly it is that you agree with in his post. What is the line of reasoning that you discern? I should note that I am being temperate, believe it or not, in my critique of his post because I imagine that it was written quickly and without the level of attention that he might otherwise have out into it.
Nevertheless, I want to be clear that I am critiquing the post, not the person.
1. See this is why I don't respect what you say. I said, Other people give reason, but I classify them as excuses. I never said anything about other people on this thread saying that the actions were ok. You're intellectually dishonest and taking things out of the context in which they were said to fit your own narrow framework. I did imply that other people, namely, some people in those situations (and other apologists) use the victim mentality to excuse their own actions or the actions of their peers. I know this to be a fact because I grew up in that situation personally and from my own reseach that I won't get into here. But it is obvious that society (ie, the criminal justice system, public opinion, lawmakers, etc) don't buy that excuse. You still go to jail for robbery despite robin hood motives, etc. I think people would hardly dispute this. "The untrained ear." ARE YOU SERIOUS?
2. The rest of your post was elementary dribble. Its plainly obvious. I'd just like you to admit, that in this particular instance, when critiquing my post, you had no idea what you were talking about. Most people seem to think you are very intelligent and reasonable. That post was the sort of thing to undermine such a reputation.
3. I'm up for reasonable and honest critique. But for the love of me, I have yet to see a post by redemption that did not engage in some sort of offensive generalization or offensive assumptions. I mean for someone who is so bent on interpreting every word of my post, your posts are mirred in unsubstantiated claims, unreasonable logical jumps, and offensive generalizations all combined with the arrogance of someone who believes they have all the answers, but has yet to add something groundbreaking.
I don't want to nominate this post yet, but it is a likely contender for the "PWNAG3 of the day" award.