Is This Pastor Groping Ariana Grande?
- Thread starter TheNightKing
- Start date
I'm also pretty sure I never said that you wrote "contemporary politics has all to do with what specific words mean.". I specifically said it has "way less" to do with that so if you exaggerated my literal words or chose to ignore specific words in the statement then why is it unbelievable to consider that YOU are exaggerating in your other posts to me on this thread?
Dictionaries often offer different definitions of some words but if you think the variance is great enough that one would be confused then I'm not sure which dictionaries you've been reading and contrasting and what words have got you thinking that way.
Yeah I mean if you want to grasp onto your belief...without actually providing proof, research, etc that agrees w/you on language having ZERO/NO objective basis then sure I guess, do that. On the other hand, I've explained to you how it has both objective and subjective qualities and roots. If it has no objective basis then please explain how I comprehend you saying that "Language is subjective"? Are there no mutually or universally understood definitions to those three words in the English language? If you can actually say no to that then it seems we are at an impasse and you are free to believe and spout to others about language being purely subjective and I will carry on to others about language having both objective and subjective elements. Somehow I'm sure this forum and everyone will carry on and sleep will not be lost on any side.
The fact that SOME words can mean more than one thing doesn't actually prove language is subjective but rather means more specificity is needed to determine the objective meaning that one is trying to convey.
That's great that you now say that you never said her reaction was 100% for certain due to his grabbing her. ...and that you're not sure anything. Yet you never actually took the position that you weren't sure for certain that her reaction could've been to something else (the joke) other than him grabbing her. Your words were " Stranger groped her breast and she's not in shock". So she's in shock because the stranger grabbed her breast is what you technically meant. You provided no allowance for the possibility that her reaction could've been to the joke.
A wise man might proportion his belief to the evidence but a fool formulates his conclusion on flimsy evidence. From the video it still doesn't provide evidence that her reaction was to his hand around her or solely to that.
Why would I necessarily or solely believe her behavior in this instance when her words would probably have less alternative meanings than her behavior or body language in this particular case...where her body language could be a reaction to more than one offense?
LUCIEN
I hate getting punched in the head
You wrote "keep believing it all has to do with what words mean". I never said it all has to do with that, so you still exaggerated my view. Your post doesn't really change anything. If anything, the fact you think you're pretty sure, but going through your post shows you're wrong, lowers your credibility.
A mutually understood definition is not a universally understood definition. We are not everyone, so just because we understand and share that meaning does not at all people and/or beings would. As for your other point, "language is subjective" means nothing to a person who doesn't speak English. What made you think the meaning in the word was objective?
I don't have flimsy evidence, you do. Let's look at the facts:
In favour:
- You admit you would be more shocked by groping
- Her reaction indicates shock
- The bishop apologized to Ariana for groping, whereas he apologized to the Hispanic community for his joke
- Her fiancé was shocked
- The reaction she had is almost unanimously recognized as some kind of shock or fear, in response to behaviour you already admitted is wrong
- Correlation isn't causation.
- She didn't say it in words.
- The warriors blew a 3-1 lead
If this was ABW court you'd get rocked.
TheNightKing
J.A.P.A.N.
Yeah, I started the thread and I'm about to unwatch it myself, lol. But if somebody's having good discussion then so be it.
You wrote "The current political landscape suggests that people will disagree over all kinds of different words and what they mean. ". I responded "I'm pretty sure that the disagreements in this current political landscape have wayyyyy less to do with interpretations of all kinds of different words and what they mean...." Which essentially took your argument that said disagreements over all kinds of different words and what they mean are an issue in the current political landscape and rebutted it by letting you know that disagreements and any sort of enmity in this political landscape have less to do with what you suggested. I then ended by writing "keep believing it all has to do with what words mean". You never said it "all" has to do with that but you sure did write that "it suggest that people will disagree over that and you added no caveat or further suggestions over what might cause enmity amongst people in the current political landscape". I'm pretty sure a reasonable person would infer (since you offered no other suggestions as to what might divide the current political landscape) that you were suggesting that was either "all" or a major part of the issues in the current politcal landscape. Not really sure how it lowers my credibility when it seems you're the one trying to move goalposts here but sure if you want to believe that then carry on.
So here we go with you seeing words and playing loose and fast with them. Please point out where it was written that a mutually understood definition IS a universally understood definition? I'll wait.
I'm pretty sure my sentence stated " Are there no mutually or universally understood definitions to those three words in the English language?"
I assume since we are communicating in the English language that you know what "or" means right? So if you do and you still wrote what you wrote in your post then I have to believe you are just choosing to be disingenuous and that's unfortunate because a discussion with someone who chooses to present himself as that when rebutting opposing points is pointless and a waste of time.
Saying "language is subjective" in English of course would mean nothing to someone who doesn't speak the same language. Saying it in Spanish or French to someone who speaks said language would apply in this instance. You're choosing to look at it from the view point of the English language or one particular language being communicated universally and saying that wouldn't hold up while I'm looking at it from the point of AN individual language being communicated to someone or in a part of the world where the language is spoken and understood and one can comprehend the meaning of words in that language regardless of whether they have one accepted definition or more than one.
Ah, "I don't....but you do instead". That's what you're left to resort to?
My bad, I didn't even realize you resorted to lying (or is fibbing a better word for this instance?) Tell me where I admitted I would be more shocked by groping? I didn't say that or anything about that on this thread but if misrepresentation of what others write is in vogue..despite actual proof just a page away then as you were chief.
So, your "in favour" section- Her reaction indicates shock AT SOMETHING.
The Bishop apologized to her for groping.- Which he should have but that still doesn't indicate that was what she was reacting to.
Oh wow, her fiance was shocked. You don't say? Still not actual evidence in your favour AS TO HER REACTION. That was HIS reaction watching.
The reaction she had is almost unanimously recognized as some kind of shock OR SURPRISE and not necessarily fear in response to such behavior but also in response to a corny stupid joke...but you'll keep calling it fear without her actually saying that's what it was...because body language experts do what they do.
So in essence your evidence is pretty much just one thing
1. Her reaction indicates shock TO SOMETHING.
Evidence against:
1. Her body language could be in response to more than one thing
2. She didn't say it in words- thanks for noting that since that's actually kinda sorta important.
Oh this is awkward. Seems like you spoke too soon. I'm no mathematician but I've got to believe 2 is greater than 1, no? That would seem to be in my favor if this were a court and along with your misrepresentation of actual statements right in front of you, dare i say you'd be reprimanded repeatedly by a judge in said court.[/QUOTE]
I'm all for that. I'll respond as long as I'm being spoken to or quoted. If not then I got zero problem letting this thread go by the wayside and focusing on actual current stuff.
Might as well unwatch though. I'm sorry about the discussion or argument between myself and the person I've been responding to on here and I understand if others might be tired of this thread and seeing it pop up and I imagine it's annoying to everyone else. Best to just unwatch the thread.
LUCIEN
I hate getting punched in the head
I'll stop inquiring about this ridiculousness when zombie, I mean Mr Man, tells me where the objective meaning of a word can be observed.
You will assume what I meant when I said that political disagreements suggest words mean different things to different people, but you won't make any inferences about whether or not Arianna is shocked by a joke or by being physically violated? Why are you hesitant about the second but not the first, even though both are assumptions? Also, if words do not have subjective meaning, then why did you just state: "I'm pretty sure a reasonable person would infer (since you offered no other suggestions as to what might divide the current political landscape) that you were suggesting that was either "all" or a major part of the issues in the current politcal landscape" ? If words mean the same thing to everyone, all the time, there would be no either or situation.
Above, you imply that being able to comprehend the same language as me indicates objective meaning. If it was objective it would be universal. Two plus two is four, no matter who you are. "Language is subjective" does not have that same objectivity or universal meaning.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. If the person who says the words thinks they mean something, but the other person does not share that meaning or understand, that is evidence against objective meaning.
I never said for sure, but i'm pretty close. Weighing the evidence indicating that her response is due to groping rather than due to a joke, there is not actually much evidence pointing to the joke. You merely gave evidence which shows that groping is not for certain the cause of her reaction, but it does not show the joke is equally as likely to cause it.
At the time of the joke, men were ogling her, too. Maybe her reaction was due to that. Also, I farted right before, so maybe it was due to that. Or, maybe we could judge the correlating factors to determine which is actually the most likely to cause a reaction. If we were to judge these based on criminal law, groping is hands down the worse offense, even if you prefer being groped to hearing racist jokes
You will assume what I meant when I said that political disagreements suggest words mean different things to different people, but you won't make any inferences about whether or not Arianna is shocked by a joke or by being physically violated? Why are you hesitant about the second but not the first, even though both are assumptions? Also, if words do not have subjective meaning, then why did you just state: "I'm pretty sure a reasonable person would infer (since you offered no other suggestions as to what might divide the current political landscape) that you were suggesting that was either "all" or a major part of the issues in the current politcal landscape" ? If words mean the same thing to everyone, all the time, there would be no either or situation.
Above, you imply that being able to comprehend the same language as me indicates objective meaning. If it was objective it would be universal. Two plus two is four, no matter who you are. "Language is subjective" does not have that same objectivity or universal meaning.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. If the person who says the words thinks they mean something, but the other person does not share that meaning or understand, that is evidence against objective meaning.
I never said for sure, but i'm pretty close. Weighing the evidence indicating that her response is due to groping rather than due to a joke, there is not actually much evidence pointing to the joke. You merely gave evidence which shows that groping is not for certain the cause of her reaction, but it does not show the joke is equally as likely to cause it.
At the time of the joke, men were ogling her, too. Maybe her reaction was due to that. Also, I farted right before, so maybe it was due to that. Or, maybe we could judge the correlating factors to determine which is actually the most likely to cause a reaction. If we were to judge these based on criminal law, groping is hands down the worse offense, even if you prefer being groped to hearing racist jokes
Well since you've chosen to be rather obtuse about that despite examples shown to you and explained to you plus you choose to let the actual argument move from one post to another then I''ll say you'll keep inquiring regardless so I guess we'll keep rolling along.
Firstly, you do realize that me having an actual 1 on 1 on-going discussion with you is not similar to observing someone ...on a medium like the television(not even in person) behave or react in a certain way right? If you don't understand that then why are we talking? If you don't understand why one would be hesitant about the second and not the first w/regard to making assumptions then it's not my duty to help you understand or walk you through it.
Secondly, Are you having problems following or comprehending the discussion or are you truly trying to misrepresent actual things that have been said on here? I mean, it does seem to be the latter and that's unfortunate because why would I want to discuss with someone who repeatedly keeps stating the opposite of what I've said and positing it back to me as if that's what I said despite actual evidence on here that it wasn't said?
I've literally spent the last 3 or so posts telling you how there are subjective and objective elements in words that are used in languages.
That's just sad for you to be doing that.
Where did I stutter in stating the universality of words in a specific language? If you feel that "Language is subjective" doesn't have that same objectivity or universal meaning despite it being explained previously in prior posts to you then unfortunately my friend, I'm under no obligation to hold your hand and walk you through it like a child. You can go back and re-read multiple times and eventually I hope it comes together for you. But it's not my duty to continue to break it down for you until we reach the smallest elements.
As stated in what you saw but did not comprehend my friend, it is most definitely not evidence against objective meaning in a language but rather specificity required for certain words in a given language. Again, the point was explained to you. If you choose not to understand, I'm afraid it's not my duty to walk you through it.
So are you now done moving goalposts in your closing argument or is there more to come? Now it's spinning it as my evidence "shows groping is not for certain the cause of her reaction but it does not show the joke is equally as likely to cause it" lol. There's two potential causes of her reaction. You basically ignored one and focused on the other. I merely indicated that both are viably in play here. She turns around and looks behind her as the joke is made and the punchline said. If you don't deem that as evidence that the joke might be the cause of her reaction then that's just you wilfully choosing to ignore it and choosing to make your case around the other alternate cause...something which I didn't do as I left both in play. You chose not to.
Yes, we have reasonable certainty that the men were "ogling" her right? Because we saw them looking at her so it was must definitely "ogling". Alrighty then.
Now you go and further weaken your argument by inserting a weak post hoc fallacy in there. Yes you farting right before might be the cause. Alright then, I guess we can all have a laugh at the joke but it didn't strengthen anything.
Well unfortunately we wouldn't need to judge the correlating factors because there were mainly two and my point still stands about both being in play. You choose to automatically rank and summize which one is worse and most likely the reason for her reaction while I choose to acknowledge either could be in play. That's the difference. Unfortunately for you as well, this isn't criminal court so the burden isn't on you or me to determine which is the worst offense and the cause of her reaction. The burden on you was to prove that his joke couldn't have been the reason for her reaction...which you haven't. Good effort though.
LUCIEN
I hate getting punched in the head
Your examples don't point out where the objective meaning comes from. The example you did give, about our being able to understand eachother being a product of objective meaning, does not actually show words are objectively true to one meaning rather than subjectively interpreted in similar ways. How would you draw that distinction?
Our discussion is a lot like that. You are limited in your perspective by the fact this is an online conversation, just like the audience was limited in its perspective by the fact that they were observing the situation on TV. Both limit how accurate your belief about the conversation can be. Both appear to have multiple interpretations. Please elaborate on how that at all suggests objective rather than subjective meaning.
There are objective elements to words, but you haven't pointed them out. Where did I misrepresent your views? You used an example of us being able to understand eachother as proof language is objective, but if I go to China I won't understand a thing. If your point, in all of that, is that it's halfway objective: ain't no such thing as halfway objective
This sounds like you can't show the objective meaning. Your point doesn't point out where the objective meaning is located or where it comes from.
Unless you can prove those are causal factors, you're assuming they are. Maybe she got a text. Maybe a magic wizard cast a spell on her. Perhaps the illuminati tried to come for her, right at that second. Assigning all correlative factors the same likelihood of causing a specific outcome is not reasonable. It's the same non-sense tobacco companies used for decades to avoid having to admit their products cause cancer "Well, those cancer cells could have come from so many things... look at how that guy eats/lives/drives/doesn't exercise/etc." Nobody is going to say cancer is just as likely to been caused from a sedentary lifestyle as from tobacco.
It doesn't weaken my argument. You're acting as if correlation is similar to causation. I don't know if you have a vested interest in the bishop, but if you recognize that one is worse than the other, not only in the eyes of the law but also from a personal perspective, I want to know why you would at all think the joke and being groped can be given the same weight.
LUCIEN
I hate getting punched in the head
So how is the word "strawberry" subjectively interpreted in a way different from it's objective meaning? As I've said repeatedly now, there are objective and subjective elements. The word "weird" can be interpreted in multiple ways and as such is different.
Except that this is an online conversation between me and you so I get a much more indepth connection with you regarding your perspective than you and the audience would by observing the situation on TV. Both might limit but it's actually obvious to anyone as to the difference between observing a situation on a medium like the television and having a 1 on 1 conversation with someone if not in person then at least on a forum to have such a conversation and go back and forth about issues and perspectives....unlike observing a situation on TV. I'm not sure why I would need to help you differentiate that as that would seem to be basic to anyone but I guess you're welcome.
Where did you misrepresent my views? Do you just skim or are you legitimately trying to lie that you didn't do what I posted above? Ignoring or working your way around the actual view I presented. Your stating I wrote that "a mutually understood definition is a universally understood definition" was presented above for you to see. If you choose to ignore that then don't come back asking me where did you (intentionally or ignorantly ) misrepresent my views. And lolz at no such thing as halfway objective. You believe that's an absolute and I've pointed out objective and subjective elements to language.
I'll help you out then. At the point when a word in a language is defined or assigned one particular meaning, that would make said word objective. That should be easily understandable to you.
Aren't you claiming the grope as a causal factor in her reaction? A reasonable person would infer that as a legitimate possibility. Why wouldn't the joke be the same?
Your post hoc unobservable and extreme possibilities don't really enhance your point in this as you try to weaken the use of both as causal factors in her reaction. Yes Maybe this or that happen but as far as we know... from what we could see and hear there were only two observable causes of her reaction. Assigning or ranking the likelihood of either of them causing her reaction is not something I really care for or to do...that's all you buddy. The point about both possible correlative factors still stands. You stating that assigning both the same likelihood of causing the outcome(her reaction)is unreasonable while at the same time comparing it to what tobacco companies have done is what in fact is unreasonable. Both arent even close comparatively.
Tobacco companies and their excuses/claims involved further research that showed exactly what those cells came from and could disprove their claims. This situation involves two observable factors that had a likelihood of causing her reaction. Ranking them is up to you and that's your decision as to deciding to evaluate on the basis of which had a greater likelihood of causing said reaction. My point holds that either one could have. You giving both factors various levels of weight still doesn't disprove the fact that either factor might have caused her reaction. One might be considered more offensive than the other but it wasn't done right before her reaction but you're entitled to believe in whichever factor you think caused her reaction.
He grabs her side before the joke. And then as he tells the stupid joke. He holds her closer as he delivers the joke and then she reacts as she shakes her head while he calls her an icon. But sure, there's only one legitimate reason for her reaction if you say so.
Where are these men that were doing the ogling in the picture as you stated?
I see one man looking at her in a way that could be construed as ogling given his history and two other men just looking at her but if you construe what Sharpton and Jackson are doing as ogling then that might just be an issue with you my friend. Perhaps a tad hyperbolic in "At the time of the joke, men were ogling her, too". And if you can't see in the pictures you posted that....she was singing as Clinton was perhaps ogling her as you stated...and not at the time of the joke...then why are we still talking? You're still being disingenuous or just ignoring actual facts. At this point it seems like the former.
No what weakens your argument is stating one thing and providing proof of something else in combination with misrepresenting statements literally placed right in front of you on here.
Lol yes I have a vested interest in the bishop who I've chastised on here in terms of his actions at the event. You're that frustrated that you state an intentional untruth and cloak it in that way? Go back to my posts and show where I approved his actions...which would then indicate me having any sort of interest in the bishop and whatever happens to him from this.
How can I explain this to you any further my friend? I am not giving them the same weight in terms of how offensive either are. I gave them the same weight in terms of when the groping and the pastors words occurred and when her reaction occurred. The timing. If you don't get that then it's not my obligation to help you see how either of them could be legitimate causes of her reaction. That's on you.
Will do so whenever the body language expert, I mean "Lucien" is ready to acknowledge that she could be reacting to more than just what he thinks she reacted to.
That ish is up to him. Until then....
Babelipsss
Active Member
Yeah I was wondering the same thing. I never heard Ariana say anything about it.
LUCIEN
I hate getting punched in the head
So based on the timing, that's all that's forming your view? I'm confused why you would neglect all the other damming evidence: 1) his apology 2) the legal perspective about which is more offensive, and 3) her visible disgust and what you yourself would find most shocking. What makes timing that important for you? Many other things correlated with that, why are you giving so much weight to a joke about taco bell when she's Italian?
You may not outright approve his actions, but you indirectly excuse and normalize his actions when you equicocate groping with joking.
konceptjones
The one between three and three.
It used to be, back when NAMBLA was fully a part of the gay community.
