Originally posted by Bob Hinton
View Post
So how is your statement a "clarification" when it is forcing words into somebody elses mouth. That generally tends to count as a "lie", and could probably be considered a personal attack. Explaining that the article is infact about a possitive discrimination agenda is not the same as saying if you support that agenda or not. It really is not that hard to understand Bob, and one must wonder why you always insist on cramming additional statments and conjecture into the mouths of others.
For those of you watching out for the logical fallacies here, that is another "non-existent middle ground" argument: Either Limehouse MUST agree with everything Bob has said, or Limehouse must want possitive discrimination to be the norm, with organisations of black police officers and white people (whoops, "indiginous" people, who apparently can not be black or other ethnic origins) etc. Don't ask what the Job was either (because, that might offer something like common sense to the situation: "But why should it be preferable for the outreach officer to engage with the muslim community on their own cultural terms be a muslim????"). Oh, and of course a Straw Man fallacy for exagerating Limehouses' statements into something far easier to argue against that was actually said. (Hence the "Clarification" in which "what the article Limehouse is talking about" magically becomes "what Limehouse says". One is easier to argue against than the other, and either is easier than admitting Bob wasn't strictly truthful about the claims in the article itself.
Comment