Putting a statement at the beginning of an argument does rather imply that it's part of said argument, otherwise it's largely meaningless and shouldn't be there. You've never heard it used that way, so what?
So what? Nothing. I didn't realise every single thing said had significance to a whole paragraph of writing. I did split it up nicely, with full stops and labelling what I was saying, separating statement from argument, for someone who's basing a whole argument on the basis of dictionary definitions, I thought you'd understand that. Meh.
It doesn't require it, but it does accept that they play a part in context, which was something you denied: "I'm not sure why you think Suarez would have to point out his skin or other physical actions, that's not context."
And yet this changes **** all about my argument. English is my least favourite subject, pick me up on things I say wrong, I care about the substance of what someone has to say.
Yes, yes it is. But as I have said numerous times, the context that we have is too broad to ascertain whether or not this was a racial slur or simply an insult. (Let's not go into how arbitary your exclusion of action from communication is)
You can offer a broad reasoning for any subject, lawyers have to make a living, after all. Occam's razor, it's far, far more likely that something is racist when you use a racial term when it was CLEAR from on-pitch actions that there was animosity between the two, amongst other factors, but that's the key one.
You mean like I did several times with Mike? The context is that Suarez was angry with Evra and called him a negrito, in an insulting sense. That doesn't clarify whether or not he was using its racist connotations. I feel like I have to put this in huge bold letters because I've said it so many times and all anyone else has done is dance around it, saying "nope" without ever coming close to substantiating their rebuttal.
There are tonnes of insults out there that he could have used instead, but he didn't, that's his problem. It's socially unacceptable to say such things and it's society which is judging him. Does this mean I can call as many people '******' or 'paki' etc. as long as I don't mean to invoke the true meanings of the words, and I just want to insult someone? No, no it does not.
No, but the current information is inadequate. If you read my post where I mention physical action you'll see that I never say or imply that context cannot be derived without action, merely that linguistic ambiguity in this case leaves us with rather indefinite conclusions about whether or not it was a racial slur. You seem to have got yourself in a tizz about a point I never made...
Context can and has still been derived. A physical action is unlikely, just because it's absent, doesn't mean the justice system stops, there are other methods.
When did Gray and Keys use a term as ambiguous in English as negrito is in Spanish? They also said more than one word so you could establish a contextual framework (aka the tone) from their words. With Suarez you cannot.
Because Gray and Keys were speaking in a language everyone and the person they insulted understood. Many people in England speak Spanish. Evra is fluent in Spanish, he understood clearly what was said, and took offence. It's Suarez who's at fault. What matters is he said it, people know who what he said, racism can be derived from it, Evra took offence. Clearly that Evra isn't acting on his imaginary 'previous', he had a cause to take offence and did, and that puts him in the right. Defend Suarez all you like, there's no defence for stupidity, and it was very stupid of him, and stupidity doesn't get you off the hook.
Whaaaaat? No it's not, the argument is whether or not the context in question is enough to determine if Suarez used the term negrito in a racially offensive way. Given that we can only ascertain that it was said as an insult, and given that negrito has multiple negative meanings, it's impossible to conclude that it was racially offensive.
We have social standards, it isn't difficult to see how it could even be interpreted as racist if you meant it or not. There are many words that have multiple meanings, but if you're talking to someone where one of the meanings COULD offend, you don't. *******. say. it. Most people have the sense to think about that, on the off chance Suarez didn't, I still have no sympathy for him. And since Liverpool fans like to play on this non-existent previous of Evra, why would it not surprise that a man who has been as controversial as Suarez has, also has this capacity in him. Slight racism is surely a stroll in the park for someone who has bitten another player, or wait, let's apply all possible contexts to that - Maybe he just wanted to know what he tasted like!
That's an amazingly sweeping assumption but it's also irrelevant. The social context of Europe doesn't change the fact that Negrito has a non-racial positive and a negative meaning, in addition to being used as a slur.
In what way is that an assumption? It's a cultural fact. Society expects and demands certain actions from its citizens, clear from the outrage garnered by the public over the recent racial incidents.
You're standing in a field, talking to strawmen.
Says the guy who spends half his argument nitpicking non-sensical parts of my post, and then basing his actual arguments on possibilities rather than facts. There are multiple meanings to most words, but when certain words are said in certain contexts to certain people, the true meaning can be derived. It's how conversations work, if we were unable to differentiate between the different meanings of words, conversation would be rather difficult. Arguing for multiple meanings when given the context and person it was aimed at would appear to strongly suggest it was a racial slur is a desperate ******* argument. And even excluding all that, even if Suarez did mean something else, he should have the ****** sense to use a different word to express what he did mean. Suarez his given Evra a valid reason to feel racially abused, that in itself is not good enough in the world we live in today.
