<< It's admirable that you've knee jerked this defense for Rambi, I think she's a terrific person too. And I believe I know her well enough to know she she would not view my post as a personal attack on her.>>
Michael, I didn't think that you were making a personal attack on Rambi. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. The point I was trying to make was a continuation of the pot and kettle discussion. You fuss at others because you say that they illogically jump to conclusions, engage in hyperbole, are unduly influenced by sound bites, etc., yet you're doing exactly that yourself. I was just trying to hold up a mirror to help you to see that.
<<My point is why use this kind of obviously inflammed language when it's simply not true?>>
I agree with you on the principle that more critical thinking and more precise articulation are needed. I'm just suggesting that you apply the principle to yourself as well as others. From my previous post to you:
<<What seems illogical to me is that, in a post that has as its apparent main point the notion that we don't know enough to come to come to such strong conclusions, you then proceed to verbalize a whole bunch of strong conclusions as though they were proven. For example:
-"Justice Departments illegal action;"
-"The relatives weren't doing anything illegal;"
-"to clear a custody dispute;" and
-"that home was broken into was for political purpose."
Neither you nor I knows any of those things for sure.>>
Michael, you can't know that DOJ's action was illegal or that the relatives weren't doing anything illegal. You just can't. The relatives are saying so, along with a few experts. But that doesn't make it so. There are plenty of arguments on the other side. Some day we may know the answer, but we sure don't now. You are entitled to hold that belief if you want, but to wave it like a red flag is inflammatory. Likewise you can't fairly characterize this as solely a custody dispute. And what basis do you have to say that the home was broken into for political purposes? You complain about the red flags of those with differing opinions, while you continue to wave your own.
<<If they were regarded as a bunch of "kidnappers" they undoubtedly would have been arrested and charged with a crime.>>
Even after I took the time to refute this logic, you continue to argue the same point. Lots and lots of people who commit crimes are not arrested or charged. Do I, like Steven, need to find some news reports as proof? Surely you've been on this earth long enough for this to be painfully apparent.
I am not arguing that Steven has made his case that raids like the Miami one happen all the time, although I think it likely that it is so. I'm arguing that you're a pot calling the kettle black and are in denial.
Karen |
