Will any Progressive answer this question?

[Oldguy]

Two answers and both ignored.

What the fuck is your point?

You didn't mention, discuss, or cite the transcript.

What do you want? A point by point, word by word rebuttal? You want to discuss the word "we" in multiple sentences?

Sorry, I've got better things to do than that.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

What do you want? A point by point, word by word rebuttal? You want to discuss the word "we" in multiple sentences?

Sorry, I've got better things to do than that.

I want you to answer the three questions asked in the OP, based on the transcript. You can add any information you want, extrapolate to the moon, spin like a whirlpool --- but you need to cite the transcript whilst doing do.

All I want to know if your interpretation of the Promotion Ad, relative to those three questions, unless you want to argue that that the three questions are somehow biased.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Are you certain that the transcript is now accurate?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Are you certain that the transcript is now accurate?

Yes. Can you find a part that is not?

1. We have never invested as much in public education as we should have, because we've always had kind-of-a private notion of children.

2. [Sarcastic] 'Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.'

3. We haven't had a very collective notion of these are OUR children.

4. So part of it is that we have to break through our kind-of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families;

5. and recognize that kids belong to WHOLE COMMUNITIES;

6. Once it's everybody's responsibility, and not just the household's, then we start making better investments.



The only thing you've managed to prove in this discourse concerning the transcript is that she is not capable of speaking English. lololol

 

[LoneLaugher]

OK. Good.

 

[aplcr0331]

Running ads on TV to get people excited about what was once a natural but localized instinct shows us that the concept has already failed.

Is this about "the gap" again?

This soon becomes something like; If “together” we pay for your mistakes, then The Collective gets to restrict your freedoms so you don’t make as many mistakes.

We've tried abortion, lots of them. But still, the wrong kinds of people keep making babies. Now we need to take children from their parents and raise them in the collective.

Sounds like a fantastic idea.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

No Progressives want to take up this challenge?

 

[RDD_1210]

No Progressives want to take up this challenge?

What's the point? Her message is clear but you obviously have an agenda so just come out with it already and save everyone the effort.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

No Progressives want to take up this challenge?

What's the point? Her message is clear but you obviously have an agenda so just come out with it already and save everyone the effort.

Are you afraid to answer those 3 questions? All I'm asking is your interpretation of the promo ad BASED on the transcript.

Once a Progressive gives me their interpretation (of the transcript), I will will update POST NUMBER 2, so that the viewing audience can compare and contrast our answers. We can't have an argument if the other side doesn't present an argument.

 

[RDD_1210]

No Progressives want to take up this challenge?

What's the point? Her message is clear but you obviously have an agenda so just come out with it already and save everyone the effort.

Are you afraid to answer those 3 questions? All I'm asking is your interpretation of the promo ad BASED on the transcript.

Do you want my opinion or do you want me to answer your questions in your ridiculous format that if I don't do correctly will be ignored?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Do you want my opinion or do you want me to answer your questions in your ridiculous format that if I don't do correctly will be ignored?

What's ridiculous about the questions?

I'm asking you, using the transcript only:

1: Which problem does she identify?

2: What does she claim to be the cause of the problem?

3: What is her solution to the problem?

4: What are the means by which to implement her solution?

5: What will be the end result?

----------------------------------------------------------------
Questions 1 and 5 are already answered by her:

1 = We don't invest enough/correctly into public education.

5 = Our education system will prosper once we implement the solution to the cause of the problem.

Your job is to answer questions 2, 3 and 4.

 

[RDD_1210]

Do you want my opinion or do you want me to answer your questions in your ridiculous format that if I don't do correctly will be ignored?

What's ridiculous about the questions?

I'm asking you, using the transcript only:

1: Which problem does she identify?

2: What does she claim to be the cause of the problem?

3: What is her solution to the problem?

4: What are the means by which to implement her solution?

5: What will be the end result?

----------------------------------------------------------------
Questions 1 and 5 are already answered by her:

1 = We don't invest enough/correctly into public education.

5 = Our education system will prosper once we implement the solution to the cause of the problem.

Your job is to answer questions 2, 3 and 4.

Do I still need to cite the lines from the transcript?

 

[RDD_1210]

I know where you are trying to go with this but I fail to see why you are wasting so much effort on short promo ad.

She doesn't provide specifics of how she would like to fix the problem and for some reason this bothers you enough to create a thread with a rigid response system. Am I right?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I know where you are trying to go with this but I fail to see why you are wasting so much effort on short promo ad.

She doesn't provide specifics of how she would like to fix the problem and for some reason this bothers you enough to create a thread with a rigid response system. Am I right?

I can guarantee you that she states there's a problem, then she tells us that her solution will finally better our investments in education. Now I'm asking you, to tell us what her solution was. And she does give specifics.

Unless you are going to claim that MSNBC used randomized incoherent babble for their promotion ad, there is most certainly material meant to inform and persuade the target audience.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, MSNBC released this promotion ad for their station, I've been asking every Progressive to answer this very simple question, and they have all refused, and ignored its very existence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3qtpdSQox0​

Here is the RAW transcript of the Promotion Ad:

1. We have never invested as much in public education as we should have, because we've always had kind-of-a private notion of children.

2. [Sarcastic] 'Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.'

3. We haven't had a very collective notion of these are OUR children.

4. So part of it is that we have to break through our kind-of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families;

5. and recognize that kids belong to WHOLE COMMUNITIES;

6. Once it's everybody's responsibility, and not just the household's, then we start making better investments.

Here is the transcript edited to fix her inability to speak proper English (Special thanks to Lone Laugher for pointing this out to me):

1. We have never invested as much in public education as we should have, because we have always had a private notion of our children.

2. [Sarcastic] 'Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.'

3. We never had a collective notion that these are OUR children.

4. So part of it is that we have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents, or that kids belong to their families.

5. We must recognize that kids belong to the WHOLE COMMUNITY;

6. Once it is everyone's responsibility, and not just the household's [responsibility], we will start making better investments.

Ok, she states a problem: We're not investing enough/correctly into education.

Then she diagnoses the cause of the problem,

Then she proposes the solution.

She says her solution will better our investments into education.
---------------------------

Here are the Questions:​

1: Which problem does she identify? That we aren't investing enough/properly into education - This is derived from Line 1.

2: What does she claim to be the cause of the problem? [It is your job to answer this]

3: What is her solution to the problem? [It is your job to answer this]

4: What are the means by which to implement her solution? [It is your job to answer this]

5: What will be the end result? That our investments in public education will succeed once we implement the solution to the cause of the problem. This is derived from Line 6.

------------------------

Any answers to these questions that are not DERIVED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT will be ignored. You must cite the lines of the transcript in your answers.

If you don't cite the transcript, I'll quote you with the following response:

IGNORED​

Will any Progressive answer this question?

?

Why are only ‘progressives’ being asked to answer the question?

Otherwise, you’re the proud owner of a hasty generalization fallacy.

You’ve incorrectly inferred that Harris-Perry somehow ‘represents’ all ‘progressives,’ or MSNBC ‘represents’ all ‘progressives.’

Of course nothing could be further from the truth.

Your inane questions are likely being ‘ignored’ as a consequence of their stupidity.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Why are only ‘progressives’ being asked to answer the question?

Because they are the only ones that refuse to answer the question. MSNBC has been defending this promotion ad, as well as every other Progressive on this Board, but they won't actually discuss the ad itself when they defend it...

 

[JQPublic1]

The "our" that you colored and bolded in sentence one was not spoken by her.

Please try again.

Ok fixed, I'm willing to work out her terrible grammar with you. It's actually a very sad reflection on MNSBC and Tulane University that one of their most highly regarded "Professors" speaks like this.

I didn't know she was a professor at MSNBC. You seem to be saying that she was one at MSNBC as well as Tulane University. Perhaps your diction is a bit muddled.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The "our" that you colored and bolded in sentence one was not spoken by her.

Please try again.

Ok fixed, I'm willing to work out her terrible grammar with you. It's actually a very sad reflection on MNSBC and Tulane University that one of their most highly regarded "Professors" speaks like this.

I didn't know she was a professor at MSNBC. You seem to be saying that she was one at MSNBC as well as Tulane University. Perhaps your diction is a bit muddled.

For Tulane University she is a professor.
For MSNBC she is a News Anchor.
However, they often refer to her as professor on MSNBC.

Now are you going to answer the question.

 

[S.J.]

She speaks for the Democratic Party. They're coming after our money, they're coming after our guns, and they're coming after our kids. They think they own everything.

 

[JQPublic1]

The "our" that you colored and bolded in sentence one was not spoken by her.

Please try again.

Ok fixed, I'm willing to work out her terrible grammar with you. It's actually a very sad reflection on MNSBC and Tulane University that one of their most highly regarded "Professors" speaks like this.

I didn't know she was a professor at MSNBC. You seem to be saying that she was one at MSNBC as well as Tulane University. Perhaps your diction is a bit muddled.

MY BAD! You wrote [MNSBC]...MS Harris-Perry might be a professor there; wherever or whatever MNSBC is! I thought you meant MSNBC!