Something has been bugging me for a long time, and I think I just understood a small part of it. This isn't a criticism, but rather an explanation - Oralloy doesn't understand inferance.
Just to be sure, I started off this reply by looking it up so I could work from an official explanation.
Infer: To conclude or decide from something known or assumed; derive by reasoning; draw as a conclusion.
I do know what that is. I do it quite often.
I am of the firm opinion that people with low IQs should not be allowed to do things like this. They are not capable of thinking.
He's alread said he sees the world in black & white.
No. The world IS black and white. I merely see the world.
He doesn't understand why:
- if he agrees with the conviction of Chauvin, while saying that Floyd was actively resisting
-and refuses to say that during the period that Floyd was killed he was not actively resisting
...he doesn't understnd why people would accuse him of 'blaming Floyd for his own death', nor accuse him of lying, nor why people would accuse him of being racist.
I understand completely.
Those people use lies and name-calling to fill the void left by their inability to make intelligent arguments.
To him, this isn't logical, because he can't grasp that there is inferred meaning of such a position.
And I'm right.
The same goes for Arbery/McMichaels - he agreed with the lawful reason for charging the McMichaels (even though he said it should be changed so they wouldn't have been charged)
Nonsense. What I said was that I thought it was manslaughter not murder.
I referred to an effort to change the law so that such an act would be charged as manslaughter and not murder. I do not recall taking a position on that effort, either for or against.
...and thinks this is support for the victim...even while every subjective word and statement he issued inferred he McMichaels were 99% doing the right thing
Nonsense again. Before Amy Cooper I said the McMichaels were entirely in the wrong. I merely said it was manslaughter not murder until MJ posted the additional evidence.
After Amy Cooper things are entirely different of course.
and that Arbery was to blame for his own death
I have never, ever, said anything like that.
...but he can't translate the inferance, and so thinks it's an illogical conclusion that he is displaying racism.
Well it is true that there would be no such logical conclusion.
But let's be clear. This is not an illogical conclusion. It is a lie by someone who is using personal attacks to fill in for their inability to make intelligent arguments.
There are other issues I think, but I think this is where much of the problem arises. Everyone talks about the obvious inferred meaning...and oralloy thinks their lying because he can't/doesn't process inferred meanings.
It is the exact opposite. I'm about the only one here who is smart enough to process inferred meanings.
The rest of you should not be trying to think for yourselves.
It may be why patterns of behaviour appear meaningless to him (this last is still in the guess stage for me)
I have no idea what you are even talking about.