> I was asking someone who made a specific claim, they were not quoting from the paper. I'm asking him about the claim they made.
In showing that a specific question you asked is beside the point of the paper, there is nothing wrong in quoting the paper to demonstrate what that point is.
Furthermore, I quoted the specific question you posed (for reference: 'Was their intent at the time of "voting against their interests" to injure their own group?') Syzarian's comment (and, more relevantly, the claim you specifically picked out in your latest reply) neither implies nor is predicated on either a yes or no answer to the question I quoted - and there is no reason it should, especially if, as I suspect (but cannot prove), Syzarian is well aware that this is beside the point of the paper.
> In the context of an article titled "Individuals prefer to harm their own group rather than help an opposing group.
This is an entire paragraph, yet it does not even appear to be a complete sentence, but you do seem to be agreeing that the context created by the paper is relevant.
> If the person did present an example of something claimed by the article, the article cannot be used to substantiate it...
The question of yours that I responded to is not about, and does not raise an issue concerning, the veracity of the claim you have specifically identified.
>>> Do we have any insights into their state of mind when taking these actions?
>> Often we do [because people generally are not all that shy in telling one another - and the media - what they think.]
> Do we have any for the specific instance in question?
This is the most blatant example so far of something that pervades all your posts here: attempting to shift the burden of proof by raising questions where there is no real doubt, knowing that any attempt to respond could be stretched out indefinitely through the use of similar questions [Update: as you have demonstrated in your further replies to Syzarian and others.] If you have a point to make here, the burden's on you to make it, bud.
>> It is also highly improbable that a group which fought hard for union representation, or made considerable use of a public pool, suddenly decided these things were against their own interests right at the time these benefits were being extended to other people.
In showing that a specific question you asked is beside the point of the paper, there is nothing wrong in quoting the paper to demonstrate what that point is.
Furthermore, I quoted the specific question you posed (for reference: 'Was their intent at the time of "voting against their interests" to injure their own group?') Syzarian's comment (and, more relevantly, the claim you specifically picked out in your latest reply) neither implies nor is predicated on either a yes or no answer to the question I quoted - and there is no reason it should, especially if, as I suspect (but cannot prove), Syzarian is well aware that this is beside the point of the paper.
> In the context of an article titled "Individuals prefer to harm their own group rather than help an opposing group.
This is an entire paragraph, yet it does not even appear to be a complete sentence, but you do seem to be agreeing that the context created by the paper is relevant.
> If the person did present an example of something claimed by the article, the article cannot be used to substantiate it...
The question of yours that I responded to is not about, and does not raise an issue concerning, the veracity of the claim you have specifically identified.
>>> Do we have any insights into their state of mind when taking these actions?
>> Often we do [because people generally are not all that shy in telling one another - and the media - what they think.]
> Do we have any for the specific instance in question?
This is the most blatant example so far of something that pervades all your posts here: attempting to shift the burden of proof by raising questions where there is no real doubt, knowing that any attempt to respond could be stretched out indefinitely through the use of similar questions [Update: as you have demonstrated in your further replies to Syzarian and others.] If you have a point to make here, the burden's on you to make it, bud.
>> It is also highly improbable that a group which fought hard for union representation, or made considerable use of a public pool, suddenly decided these things were against their own interests right at the time these benefits were being extended to other people.
>
Don't you have anything to say here?