Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (613932)	5/31/2011 6:27:56 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571040

Whether he did because of race isn't really the point. In the context of this conversation on racial discrimination it is. Also detaining combatants in a war doesn't resemble the mass disappearance of political opponents. Their agenda is very real. A bias or agenda is real, but no more so than from just about any other source that is going to develop arguments in this area. And even the strongest agenda wouldn't make their arguments invalid. It would be a useful point if the only argument was their authority, that "they say it, so it must be true", but its meaningless in terms of analyzing an actual argument. Dismissing arguments out of hand, because they come from people you disagree with (in this case me) or link to further data from others you disagree with (CATO) doesn't make for productive or interesting conversation. If we are actually going to operate that way we might as well just put each other on ignore. Personally I've never considered such disagreement a reason to ignore someone (not by using SI's ignore, or by just refusing to respond to the argument that's raised with anything else other than ad-hominem)