Quote (Thor123422 @ Jun 6 2020 01:11pm)
An implication is not an extrapolation. When you read anything your interpretation of the words on the page is reading into an implication.
You're pretty dumb lol
I didn't imply it was, that was your
interpretation of my words reading into the overarching implication I setup from the start. YOU implied that the creator of the meme was extrapolating that
A) if the pregnant woman would've had a gun at the moment, she would've
justifiably gotten rid of him right there and
B ) if George Floyd
was too dangerous to be on the streets, he would've been a greater menace to society and thus what happened to him is justified. (Which you of course omitted - because lets be real, you're pretty smart for a nurse and there's no way you didn't get it). What needs to be demonstrated here is whether the text justifies
what happened to him (George Floyd). Which was the original point brought up by Surfpunk...
The first issue you bring is the implication that since he had a criminal record, he is being painted as not being worth consideration. And this somehow justifies what happened to him? Which I of course reject as a valid assertion. Not only it is incredibly vague, but it isn't true at all. Him having a criminal record does not justify him being murdered in cold blood. It does, however, suggest it is a poor choice of
poster boy for a valid movement that tries to reduce these kinds of injustices.
You also suggest that the statement "possibly kill your kid" implies he's too dangerous to be allowed on the streets. Which of course this means that it is justified for a cop to kill him. Wait.. no... "too bad the pregnant woman didn't have a gun", yea that's better, the pregnant woman would've dealt with him right there. This again of course implying that the cop was justified in the murder.
Back in reality, these whole lot of implications require the writer to
extrapolate, based on the background available on George Floyd.
This post was edited by WiziLiCe on Jun 6 2020 01:04pm