My point is and has been that your claim that there might possibly be some context out there somewhere under which things like Paul's claim that 95% of all black males in DC are criminals would not be racist is at best wildly implausible given how you keep refusing to provide any; because of all the other racist passages from the Paul newsletters that have come to light over the years.

It's put up or shut up time for you. Provide the context that I've been asking you for for I forget exactly how many days now, or you will be rightfully dismissed as not worth wasting any further time and attention on. Your call, dude.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I already said, before you even commented the very first time on my post, that I had found the context it was in and it didn't make the quotes any less racist. And I already told you that.

I also, in that first post, provided a context in which the quoted claim wouldn't have been racist, if it had been in that context, so I already did show that there "might possibly be" some context out there. As well as already acknowledging that there wasn't.

I've already provided what you ask for, a context under which the claim would not be racist, thus proving my contention that it was plausible that it could have been in such a context, and I've already agreed with you that it wasn't in such a context. I don't really know what you're disagreeing with now, but it doesn't seem to be me.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

No, you did nothing of the sort. You claimed that because some statistics might possibly exist somewhere that might possibly, just maybe, might show that Paul's claim that DC managed to be such an outstanding statistical outpost that, unlike any other city in the entire United States of America, 95 out of every 100 black males who lives there is a criminal, was something other than a racist statement was perfectly believable.

That goes beyond merely not being believable (perfectly or no); it's one of the stupidist tucking things I have read in years. So since you yourself have admitted that no such statistics can be offered, why not just stop posting rather than keep doubling down on the tucking stupid? Either way, thanks for confirming that you're not worth wasting any more of my time on, and this will be my last reply to you. Huh-bye now.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Okay, I realize you've said you're not replying any more but I have to ask anyway, because I really don't understand where you're coming from. Which of these premises is the one you are disagreeing with?

1. That when discussing a statistical report that has to do with a comparison of something racially charged, eg. percentage of different races convicted of crimes, it is very easy to say something which, removed from that context, would appear extremely racist, but which does not show racism (from the person discussing it at least) inside the context.

2. That a small quote taken out of context, and for which no context is supplied or readily available, could easily have come from a context which was a discussion of a statistical report. (Or a discussion of other people's opinions, or a satire, or a myriad of other contexts that could completely change the meaning.)

Please note, neither of these premises have anything whatsoever to do with Ron Paul, because my point had nothing to do with Ron Paul beyond that the article that I was annoyed by was about him. My annoyance at the article was unrelated to Ron Paul.

I didn't say anything about "because some statistics might possibly exist somewhere", I gave a single example of a context that could change the meaning to something devoid of racism. Because the existence of one example, though there are many more, is sufficient to show that the context might be important.

The reason I don't stop posting "because I have admitted that no such statistics can be offered" is because I'm not fucking arguing that Ron Paul is not racist, and you don't seem to be able to get that through your thick skull. I don't have to offer any existing statistics because A CONTEXT THAT WOULD CHANGE THE MEANING IS SOMETHING THAT EXISTS. My point does not require a context that DOES change the meaning to be something that exists, but because you're arguing with "Ron Paul is innocent", something that isn't my point at all and never has been, you insist most vehemently that I have to provide nonexistent evidence to refute your strawman or my argument is dumb.

Perhaps this short summary will make my argument clearer: there is no way to tell, from looking at the original article, anything it cites, and a cursory Google search, whether the quotes given are more similar to:
1. Abraham Lincoln said "You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time."
or
2. Jonathan Swift said "a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food."

Both are genuine quotes (probably), but (at least) one gives an extremely misleading impression in the absence of context. And since the context, in the Ron Paul case, couldn't be easily found, what compelling reason was there to assume that it's not more like quote 2? (To clarify, again, I have dug up the actual context and proven to my satisfaction that it's not more like quote 2, but that doesn't in any way mitigate my original point, that the article actively provided reason to doubt by saying people said the context was important, and then didn't provide anything to assuage that doubt.)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)