Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
Examples please? Huh? Have you ever heard of Arizona? I said "states" rather than "state" because Holder's policy is obviously to sue states that pass this type of legislation and there will be more to follow. Other states are already in the planning stages of coming up with similar laws to Arizona. Are you suggesting that Holder doesn't sue states that try to enforce immigration laws?
You are just arguing over semantics. Here is an analogy. Let's say a guy is prejudice against black people and this guy is about to open a business. He needs to hire employees and he starts interviewing people. He interviews a black woman who is well-qualified but he doesn't hire her because she is black. Would it be incorrect for me to say he won't hire "black people"? Would you say, "Hey Rupert. Why did you say "black people" plural? It should not have been plural. So far there was only one black person (the only one interviewed so far) that he didn't hire. Why are you making it plural? Are you trying to make it sound worse?"
|
I'm not arguing semantics. I'm arguing your words. You wrote them. Own them.
Obviously I have heard of Arizona, and that is one, so I was right about you trying to make it sound worse than it was. It's not like it was all that surprising to see it coming. When there is a "them" and when there are "states," then you can feel free to talk about it like it's some kind of epidemic. When there is only one example, talk about that one example. If it's so shockingly horrific, you shouldn't need to try to make it sound worse than it is.
Until then, though I know this isn't high on your list of priorities, a little intellectual honesty would be a good addition to your repertoire.