Is this Racism or PC gone mad?

Remove this Banner Ad

Well, let me ask it in more simple terms, then:

Do you believe that $$$ had any bearing on Murdoch's comments?

Recall that he is the major shareholder of News Corp.

Possibly, but if someone makes a public apology I think its important to give them the benefit of the doubt to reinforce the desired acknowledgement of the cartoon being insensitive.
 

SitOnFence.jpg
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I haven't seen you offer an opinion yet, fd.

What do you think?

This thread has seen a lot of debate about whether or not the cartoon was 'racist', or should be seen as 'insensitive' or some such.

And you mentioned that Murdoch had apologised -- the implication being that if the chairman of the news conglomerate which ran the cartoon apologised for it, then it must have been 'racist' and/or insensitive.

I am pointing out that Murdoch had a vested financial interest in 'apologising' for it, whether or not he actually thought that there was anything wrong with the cartoon.

Hence, his 'apology' does not add any weight to your argument whatsoever.

I hope that is clear enough for you.
 
This thread has seen a lot of debate about whether or not the cartoon was 'racist', or should be seen as 'insensitive' or some such.

And you mentioned that Murdoch had apologised -- the implication being that if the chairman of the news conglomerate which ran the cartoon apologised for it, then it must have been 'racist' and/or insensitive.

I am pointing out that Murdoch had a vested financial interest in 'apologising' for it, whether or not he actually thought that there was anything wrong with the cartoon.

Hence, his 'apology' does not add any weight to your argument whatsoever.

I hope that is clear enough for you.

This is the first time I've seen you actually explain your opinion, when you were asking questions before I wasn't sure what you were trying to say because you explained it so poorly.

I disagree with your opinion. I think its obvious that it was insensitive and foolhardy to run the cartoon, if not blatantly racist, and that Murdoch has acknowledged this.
 
This is the first time I've seen you actually explain your opinion, when you were asking questions before I wasn't sure what you were trying to say because you explained it so poorly.

I have previously told you just how amazing your self-contradictions can be and, in your typical rush to criticise and insult, you have just produced another perfect example.

If I did not explain myself, how could I have done so 'poorly'?

Anybody with any sense could surely have seen where my earlier questions were leading, and I imagine that this includes you.

I disagree with your opinion. I think its obvious that it was insensitive and foolhardy to run the cartoon, if not blatantly racist, and that Murdoch has acknowledged this.

This does not rebut my point that Murdoch's 'acknowledgment' adds nothing to the weight of your overall argument.
 
I have previously told you just how amazing your self-contradictions can be and, in your typical rush to criticise and insult, you have just produced another perfect example.

If I did not explain myself, how could I have done so 'poorly'?

Anybody with any sense could surely have seen where my earlier questions were leading, and I imagine that this includes you.

I wasn't sure if you were just asking what my opinion was, or if you were making an actual point. I'm glad you clarified, in future, please try and be more clear from the outset it would save us both some time.

This does not rebut my point that Murdoch's 'acknowledgment' adds nothing to the weight of your overall argument.

Your opinion was not a 'point' that I even think exists, why would I rebut it?

Murdoch has acknowledged my stance as the correct one and apologised.
 
Your opinion was not a 'point' that I even think exists, why would I rebut it?

I have laid out my argument in almost standard form. It could not be clearer. If you do not understand the argument that I have put forward, there is little hope for you. However, I don't believe this is the case -- I think you can see my argument and simply do not have a way of overcoming it. Hence, you pretend the argument does not exist.

A change of tack for you, after your previous efforts along the lines of 'I know you are wrong, I just can't figure out how, yet'.
 
I have laid out my argument in almost standard form. It could not be clearer. If you do not understand the argument that I have put forward, there is little hope for you. However, I don't believe this is the case -- I think you can see my argument and simply do not have a way of overcoming it. Hence, you pretend the argument does not exist.

A change of tack for you, after your previous efforts along the lines of 'I know you are wrong, I just can't figure out how, yet'.

I know what your argument is now fd, you made it very clear in the 6th post or so. I just think most people are capable of making it clear in the first post.

Anyway, I don't think your argument holds any weight. It is, however, just your opinion and you are entitled to it.

The facts are, Murdoch has apologised and acknowledged it was at least insensitive, which is in line with my argument.
 
Has KP ever been involved in a conversation in which he hasn't had a pathological determination to have the final word?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Remove this Banner Ad

Is this Racism or PC gone mad?

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top