No Charges Prison For Guards Who Allegedly Boiled Schizophrenic Black Man to Death

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-22-2017, 09:36 PM)Dill Wrote: PS. Notice that I did predict you would congratulate yourself again before this thread died, and you couldn't even wait one post before bearing me out. I predict this trend will continue, here and on other threads as well.

I didn't, but I also predicted you'd be an insufferable ass in this thread and I was right!

[*bfine32*]

(03-22-2017, 10:43 PM)Dill Wrote: The only question I recall you addressing to me is this one: "I felt race played no part in this story and definitely didn't need to be in the headline. How about you?"  Which I answered. "I didn't "feel" anything about race until people started complaining it was mentioned." I added that I was against censoring race in such reports. And you, with no explanation, decided that was not an answer.

You provided an answer but not to the question posed.  You were asked: I felt (to have a marked opinion) race played no part in the story and definately didn't need to be in the headline. How about you? You rambled on something about you had no feeling (marked opinion) until people started complaining about it. Even though it was brought up in the second post and long before you chimed in with you feelings opinion on the thread in general. You also said something about censorship as you figured a strawman had not been introduced into the discussion. You still have not answered the question and I am not optimistic you will. 

Quote:I don't follow your angry "a" and "b" above and all the talk about "honesty" and your non-cowardice.

I was unaware that you viewed definitions as angry; especially in the context of providing a direct answer. Let's just say you are not being forthright in your responses; We'll let other decide the motivation behind them and assign their character traits to them.
 

Quote:And I did not realize Michaelsean was answering for you,  but if he was, his answer did not suffice.  Since the question at hand concerned why we speak the way we do--black man instead of  just "man"--and how should we be speaking if some don't like the way speak, to simply say "We really don't speak like that" is a non answer.

This is why I said he answered and also provided my answer as well. So now you assert the answer you received did not suffice, although it was short and concise; however you felt (thought?) your answered the direct question posed to you? They didn't just say man they used the descriptive schizophrenic; as did every other headline on the subject. It's just 99.9% of them felt (decided) his skin color was not as important to put in the title as his mental condition 

Quote:We don't say a "human being died" in a news report about a prison death because people want to know the attributes of the deceased--male or female, black, white, or other--as well as the circumstances of the death. If a child dies, we add that bit of info as well.  That is the norm at the moment.

Once again his mental condition was germane, his skin color was not. I invited folks to use any search engine they chose and see how far the hard to go to find another site that though race should be introduced in the headline. Of course we say child when a child dies. I just hope we don't say black child in the title when it is not relevant

Quote:And I question why anyone would want to change that norm by erasing race.

 
 

 Your norm has been noted and apparently color must be stressed when it has nothing to do with the subject. I will admit many are trying to make it the overall norm.

I'm pretty sure you know why to OP chose the thread that he did, but will feign ignorance. Of course I could just be over-estimating you again and you're not feigning. 

[Dill]

(03-22-2017, 11:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I was unaware that you viewed definitions as angry; especially in the context of providing a direct answer. Let's just say you are not being forthright in your responses; We'll let other decide the motivation behind them and assign their character traits to them.

This is why I said he answered and also provided my answer as well. So now you assert the answer you received did not suffice, although it was short and concise; however you felt (thought?) your answered the direct question posed to you? They didn't just say man they used the descriptive schizophrenic; as did every other headline on the subject. It's just 99.9% of them felt (decided) his skin color was not as important to put in the title as his mental condition 

Once again his mental condition was germane, his skin color was not. I invited folks to use any search engine they chose and see how far the hard to go to find another site that though race should be introduced in the headline. Of course we say child when a child dies. I just hope we don't say black child in the title when it is not relevant


 Your norm has been noted and apparently color must be stressed when it has nothing to do with the subject. I will admit many are trying to make it the overall norm.

I'm pretty sure you know why to OP chose the thread that he did, but will feign ignorance. Of course I could just be over-estimating you again and you're not feigning. 

For future reference, then, definitions become ANGRY when bolded and surrounded by language denigrating another's character while affirming the definer's own heroism and integrity.

Concision is a good thing, but that helps nothing if the answer is not substantive. You thought Michaelsean's answer was good for the same reason he did.  I did not think it adequate for reasons I gave.
 
Of course we say "child" when a child dies and of course we say "woman" when a woman dies--but of course you don't say "black" when a black man dies in prison, because according to the guards and the DA, color had nothing to do with his death.

Some of us like to keep track of how many black men die in prison for reasons that have nothing to do with race as opposed to white men who die for reasons that have nothing to do with race.

[*bfine32*]

(03-23-2017, 06:24 PM)Dill Wrote: For future reference, then, definitions become ANGRY when bolded and surrounded by language denigrating another's character while affirming the definer's own heroism and integrity.

Concision is a good thing, but that helps nothing if the answer is not substantive. You thought Michaelsean's answer was good for the same reason he did.  I did not think it adequate for reasons I gave.
 
Of course we say "child" when a child dies and of course we say "woman" when a woman dies--but of course you don't say "black" when a black man dies in prison, because according to the guards and the DA, color had nothing to do with his death.

Some of us like to keep track of how many black men die in prison for reasons that have nothing to do with race as opposed to white men who die for reasons that have nothing to do with race.

The one word in the definition was bolded because it was bolded on the site (Websters) that I copy and pasted it from. But your opinion that bolded means angry is noted.


You sure are angry.

[Dill]

(03-23-2017, 06:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The one word in the definition was bolded because it was bolded on the site (Websters) that I copy and pasted it from. But your opinion that bolded means angry is noted.


You sure are angry.

So you've noted that I "viewed definitions as angry" and then that I simply told you "bolded means angry."

While you are doing all that noting, why didn't you note my reference to "language denigrating another's character while affirming the definer's own heroism and integrity"?

Are you being "forthright" when you clip away parts of my statement to change its meaning? 

You wouldn't be suddenly "feigning ignorance" about what I actually said, would you? A guy who avoids cowardice in word and deed?

[*bfine32*]

(03-24-2017, 12:11 AM)Dill Wrote: So you've noted that I "viewed definitions as angry" and then that I simply told you "bolded means angry."

While you are doing all that noting, why didn't you note my reference to "language denigrating another's character while affirming the definer's own heroism and integrity"?

Are you being "forthright" when you clip away parts of my statement to change its meaning? 

You wouldn't be suddenly "feigning ignorance" about what I actually said, would you? A guy who avoids cowardice in word and deed?

I can tell by your lack of bold that you have calmed down; unfortunately, you're still just kinda rambling on. Of course I'm being forthright;let's see if you are:

Do you feel race played any part in the OP?

It's either 3 letters Y-E-S. or two letters N-O?


BTW: given your fear of the bolded letters the caps of yes and no were no sign of aggression. Just a simple attempt to make the reply easier for you. 

[Dill]

(03-24-2017, 12:26 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I can tell by your lack of bold that you have calmed down; unfortunately, you're still just kinda rambling on. Of course I'm being forthright;let's see if you are:

Do you feel race played any part in the OP?

It's either 3 letters Y-E-S. or two letters N-O?


BTW: given your fear of the bolded letters the caps of yes and no were no sign of aggression. Just a simple attempt to make the reply easier for you. 

I'm just kinda pointing out that denigrating another's integrity while commending one's own signals anger--especially when combined with bold type, and in your forthrightness you simplified that to a point about bold. 

Are you asking me whether I think race played a roll in the death of the inmate? If so I don't have enough information to say yes or no definitively. So I won't say either. And to repeat my earlier point, it is appropriate to mention race in this case.
It is not appropriate to ignore race.

[*bfine32*]

(03-24-2017, 12:26 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you feel race played any part in the OP?

It's either 3 letters Y-E-S. or two letters N-O?

(03-24-2017, 01:03 AM)Dill Wrote: I'm just kinda pointing out that denigrating another's integrity while commending one's own signals anger--especially when combined with bold type, and in your forthrightness you simplified that to a point about bold. 

Are you asking me whether I think race played a roll in the death of the inmate? If so I don't have enough information to say yes or no definitively. So I won't say either. And to repeat my earlier point, it is appropriate to mention race in this case.
It is not appropriate to ignore race.

Never mind.