A continuation of the Straw Man ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Let's go back to the beginning:
Quote: The answer is that the phrase is used frequently in certain circles and on certain Web sites with their own agenda and outlook on things as a euphemism that people very badly want to use, but can't, so they dance around it with a phrase that doesn't really fit too well within the context of a 48 year old man, but will fit into a certain context in its own right when applied to Obama.
There's your misrepresentation, or redefinition of the term I've used, using insinuation in which you're employing narrow criteria that lead the reader to one probable conclusion.
I didn't misrepresent a thing, nor did I redefine anything. A straw man argument is when a similar, but weaker position is substituted for the original position, and then the weaker substitute (the straw man) is refuted, and as such a claim is made that the original position has also been refuted without ever having addressed the original. I did not do that. The above is already accurately represented and well defined by others as stated quite plainly in the statement I made above. The statement stands on it's own, and it is absolutely not used in within a narrow criteria. It is how the term, albeit rarely used in commonplace, is MOST OFTEN USED TODAY when referencing Obama. No, it's not the ONLY way it's used, but it's certainly the most frequent and widespread use of it by those relatively few people who actually use it.
The phrase "boy president" as applied to Obama is, in fact, frequently used in certain circles (yes, primarily racists) and on certain Web sites (again, yes, primarily racists) with their own agenda and outlook on things (to promote racism and hate) as a euphemism for the term they so badly want to use (the "N" word), so they dance around it using a phrase that A) doesn't apply to a 48 year old man in this context and B) when applied to a black 48 year old man the connotation is a racist one.
Trying to justify it by saying that the phrase was used for Bush and Clinton doesn't cut it, since it was applied to each for different reasons and in different contexts. It was applied to Bush because he had the perceived intellectual maturity of a little boy, and he was his daddy's little boy, who became the Boy King (a satirical reference to King Tut), and it was applied to Clinton because he had the maturity of a little boy when it came to keeping his hands to himself and his pecker in his pants. None of these contexts apply to Obama, at least not yet, not that we know of.
Now, you may wish to use the "most inexperienced and unqualified" [or unprepared] criteria for using the phrase as applied to Obama, but that's an awfully narrow criteria to use, considering that so few people use it in that context.
in·nu·en·do
–noun, plural -dos, -does. 1. an indirect intimation about a person or thing, esp. of a disparaging or a derogatory nature.
Yes, thank you. I'm familiar with the term. There was no innuendo on my part. It was not indirect at all. I merely recited the MOST COMMONLY USED CONTEXT of the term you are using. Not knowing for sure, but making an educated assumption based on how it is used most frequently by others in other places, I made a logical and understandable assumption that you were (and are) using it in the same manner that most others who use it do. In order for a straw man argument to be formulated, I would have to know, for sure, what your original position is before I could substitute another position (i.e., misrepresent). So to charge me with coming up with a misrepresenting straw man argument is just flat out incorrect. At most you could say that my assumption is wrong, but that's hardly the same as a straw man argument, especially since you went on to explain your position, and I never attempted to substitute a similar, weaker position and then try and refute it.
The fact that your explanation for
your particular and unique use of the phrase mirrors that of the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" racist crowd is irrelevant, as I didn't attack that position either, other than to make you aware, if you weren't already, that your rather narrow and particular use of the term is in strong conflict with how the phrase is most often used as applied to Obama.
I do think you're rather sensitive to being questioned over your use of the phrase. And I have to wonder why. I wonder why you seem so fixated on the horror that someone might be wrongly interpreting your use of the phrase, and are so hung up on the straw man argument, when none even existed. You're coming off as someone who is protesting a little too much, if you know what I mean (read into that any innuendo you like).
It appears that, through implication and innuendo, you think I'm calling you a racist. You should know me well enough by now that if I were to call you a racist, I'd call you a racist, just as I have a few others on here, and would not use innuendo to do so.
What kind of adult male GIGGLES??
That's rhetorical. I already know the answer.
So what's the answer?
Hey, I answered yours, now you answer mine. And be very careful not to misrepresent my position on this, or I'll call you a straw manner.
