Stile writes:
quote:
But burning a cross on your lawn?
You realize you just decided to change the scenario, yes? There was an understanding that the scenario was not you trying to destroy your own property by immolation but rather going to someone else's property without their consent in order to erect a cross and set it on fire specifically so that they can see it.
All within a context of such events happening primarily to send the message to black people that they aren't wanted.
If you're simply trying to point out that there are ways to burn a cross that aren't hateful, then point conceded. Simply remove all historical context and completely change the scenario from what was accepted previously and we'll all agree that it is practically possible to do this. Heck, there's an entire literary concept about such things known as "subversion of tropes." Mel Brooks did a lot of this...the entire point of
The Producers is to make a comedy about Hitler. It can be done and it's brilliant.
But when something walks, talks, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. To claim that if we pluck it, cut its feet off, remove the bill, and genetically re-engineer it with pig DNA it isn't a duck would technically be true, but isn't what was originally seen.
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.