Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

CPAC Attendees Support Slavery

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 10:10:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A panel discussion on race at the Conservative Political Action Conference turned into a debate over slavery and segregation when an attendee from North Carolina said that "young, white, Southern males" are being disenfranchised by Republicans.

Scott Terry, 30, rose from his seat to question the discussion leader, K. Carl Smith, from the Frederick Douglass Republicans, over the role of race in the Republican Party. Terry said that the growth of diversity in the party and outreach to black conservatives has been "at the expense of young, white, Southern males like myself."

"I think my demographic is being systematically disenfranchised," Terry said.

Smith responded by telling a story about a letter that abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass wrote to his former slaveowner forgiving him for holding him in servitude.

"For giving him shelter and food?" asked Terry, as some members of the audience gasped and others laughed.

Think Progress reported that Terry later said he supports segregation.

Terry told Think Progress following the panel discussion that he believed that whites have been "systematically disenfranchised" by the federal government. He also told Think Progress he'd "be fine" with a society with blacks subservient to whites. African Americans, he said, should vote in Africa. He claimed the tea party agrees with him.

Terry is not the first Southern Republican in recent months to make comments supporting slavery. Last year, several Republican state legislators in Arkansas endorsed slavery in new books, including one who suggested that the practice "may have been a blessing" for slaves by bringing them to the United States. State GOP leaders pulled support for the candidates.

Marler was ousted from her position after her comments received press attention.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 10:28:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Did you know that some communists out there probably support killing babies with knives. Three year old babies of course.

OMIGERD THAT REFLECTS ON ALL COMMUNISTS! RIGHT?!
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 10:30:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 10:28:11 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Did you know that some communists out there probably support killing babies with knives. Three year old babies of course.

OMIGERD THAT REFLECTS ON ALL COMMUNISTS! RIGHT?!

It reflects on those specific communists. Notice that I didn't say that this was a reflection on conservatives; I said it was a reflection on the CPAC attendees who cheered, laughed, and opened the ceremony with racist jokes. A young African American female wanted to respond to this man, and the organizers refused. They only wanted the pro-slavery perspective heard.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 10:33:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 10:30:13 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:28:11 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Did you know that some communists out there probably support killing babies with knives. Three year old babies of course.

OMIGERD THAT REFLECTS ON ALL COMMUNISTS! RIGHT?!

It reflects on those specific communists. Notice that I didn't say that this was a reflection on conservatives; I said it was a reflection on the CPAC attendees who cheered, laughed, and opened the ceremony with racist jokes. A young African American female wanted to respond to this man, and the organizers refused. They only wanted the pro-slavery perspective heard.

Yeah, its a biased place. Sorry.

And, you definitely implied it, even though your go say you didn't you know you did, and please just acknowledge thats what you were implying.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 10:40:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 10:33:41 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:30:13 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:28:11 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Did you know that some communists out there probably support killing babies with knives. Three year old babies of course.

OMIGERD THAT REFLECTS ON ALL COMMUNISTS! RIGHT?!

It reflects on those specific communists. Notice that I didn't say that this was a reflection on conservatives; I said it was a reflection on the CPAC attendees who cheered, laughed, and opened the ceremony with racist jokes. A young African American female wanted to respond to this man, and the organizers refused. They only wanted the pro-slavery perspective heard.

Yeah, its a biased place. Sorry.

It's a reflection of the events that happened. I'll post more evidence from other sources just for you.
And, you definitely implied it, even though your go say you didn't you know you did, and please just acknowledge thats what you were implying.

No, I did not imply it. Read the thread title. It says "CPAC Attendees Support Slavery". Did you catch that? "CPAC Attendees". Not conservatives, but CPAC Attendees.
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 12:03:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 10:10:22 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
A panel discussion on race at the Conservative Political Action Conference turned into a debate over slavery and segregation when an attendee from North Carolina said that "young, white, Southern males" are being disenfranchised by Republicans.

Scott Terry, 30, rose from his seat to question the discussion leader, K. Carl Smith, from the Frederick Douglass Republicans, over the role of race in the Republican Party. Terry said that the growth of diversity in the party and outreach to black conservatives has been "at the expense of young, white, Southern males like myself."

"I think my demographic is being systematically disenfranchised," Terry said.

Smith responded by telling a story about a letter that abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass wrote to his former slaveowner forgiving him for holding him in servitude.

"For giving him shelter and food?" asked Terry, as some members of the audience gasped and others laughed.

Think Progress reported that Terry later said he supports segregation.

Terry told Think Progress following the panel discussion that he believed that whites have been "systematically disenfranchised" by the federal government. He also told Think Progress he'd "be fine" with a society with blacks subservient to whites. African Americans, he said, should vote in Africa. He claimed the tea party agrees with him.

Terry is not the first Southern Republican in recent months to make comments supporting slavery. Last year, several Republican state legislators in Arkansas endorsed slavery in new books, including one who suggested that the practice "may have been a blessing" for slaves by bringing them to the United States. State GOP leaders pulled support for the candidates.

Marler was ousted from her position after her comments received press attention.


I agree that the comments made are abhorrent, but the conclusion that the individual who attended CPAC supports slavery is a bit bold. I'm not defending the person, by any measure, only suggesting that the comments merely indicate the speaker's belief that black persons should be in a lower socioeconomic status than whites, not necessarily that they should be enslaved by whites. That said, there are a plethora of idiotic conservatives in the United States. It's worth keeping in mind that there is no cause so noble that a fool cannot be found -or quoted- in support of it.
Tsar of DDO
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 12:26:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Erroneous statistical syllogism

10,000 people attended CPAC in 2013
1 person who attended CPAC in 2013 espoused racist ideas
------------------------therefore------------------------------
People who attended CPAC in 2013 are racist

Since a negligible percentage of people who attended CPAC are racist, it is illogical to conclude that people who attended CPAC are racist.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 12:30:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 12:26:17 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Erroneous statistical syllogism

10,000 people attended CPAC in 2013
1 person who attended CPAC in 2013 espoused racist ideas
------------------------therefore------------------------------
People who attended CPAC in 2013 are racist

Since a negligible percentage of people who attended CPAC are racist, it is illogical to conclude that people who attended CPAC are racist.

Actually, your conclusion isn't valid either.

This is all that can be drawn from the article:

Some (1% or more) people who attended CPAC support the socioeconomic positioning of Black Americans being made lower than White Americans.
Tsar of DDO
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 12:43:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 12:30:41 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/22/2013 12:26:17 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Erroneous statistical syllogism

10,000 people attended CPAC in 2013
1 person who attended CPAC in 2013 espoused racist ideas
------------------------therefore------------------------------
People who attended CPAC in 2013 are racist

Since a negligible percentage of people who attended CPAC are racist, it is illogical to conclude that people who attended CPAC are racist.

Actually, your conclusion isn't valid either.
This is all that can be drawn from the article: Some (1% or more) people who attended CPAC support the socioeconomic positioning of Black Americans being made lower than White Americans.

I reproduced her argument to demonstrate that it was illogical. I then stated why it was illogical. If you disagree with the latter part, then I refer you to statistical syllogisms:

General form
X% of F's are G's
I is an F
--------------------------
I is a G

Positive
Most investors are smart
Austen is an investor
----------------------------
Austen is smart

Negative
Few WVU students are rich
Joe is a JMU student
-------------------------------
Joe is not rich

Even if 30% of CPAC attendees were racist, it would be illogical to conclude that CPAC attendees are racist, because a higher percentage are not racist than are racist. http://tinyurl.com...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 12:45:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There may be a couple wacky Conservatives out there, but 99% of Democrats support Margaret Sanger's eugenecist, ethnic cleansing depopulation organization called Planned Parenthood.

"The Negro Project was the foundation of today"s industrialized abortion industry and how its pioneer, Margaret Sanger, who is still lauded by liberals as a human rights crusader, deliberately set out to sterilize blacks and encourage abortion of black babies in pursuit of a eugenicist drive to create a racially superior master race, a goal she shared with her close friend Adolf Hitler, and one that continues to reverberate through the generations as over 1,700 black babies are killed in the United States every day."

http://www.blackgenocide.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

There may be a few racist Conservatives, but Liberals are the ones committing eugenics black genocide.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 12:48:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 12:43:54 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/22/2013 12:30:41 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/22/2013 12:26:17 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Erroneous statistical syllogism

10,000 people attended CPAC in 2013
1 person who attended CPAC in 2013 espoused racist ideas
------------------------therefore------------------------------
People who attended CPAC in 2013 are racist

Since a negligible percentage of people who attended CPAC are racist, it is illogical to conclude that people who attended CPAC are racist.

Actually, your conclusion isn't valid either.
This is all that can be drawn from the article: Some (1% or more) people who attended CPAC support the socioeconomic positioning of Black Americans being made lower than White Americans.

I reproduced her argument to demonstrate that it was illogical. I then stated why it was illogical. If you disagree with the latter part, then I refer you to statistical syllogisms:

General form
X% of F's are G's
I is an F
--------------------------
I is a G

Positive
Most investors are smart
Austen is an investor
----------------------------
Austen is smart

Negative
Few WVU students are rich
Joe is a JMU student
-------------------------------
Joe is not rich


Even if 30% of CPAC attendees were racist, it would be illogical to conclude that CPAC attendees are racist, because a higher percentage are not racist than are racist. http://tinyurl.com...

The syllogisms you've reproduced refer only to degrees of strength, on the basis of accuracy. I'm talking about what can be absolutely drawn from the article posted. Your reproduction isn't structurally fallacious, it just fails to capture the meaning of the article.
Tsar of DDO
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 1:05:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 12:48:35 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/22/2013 12:43:54 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/22/2013 12:30:41 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/22/2013 12:26:17 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Erroneous statistical syllogism

10,000 people attended CPAC in 2013
1 person who attended CPAC in 2013 espoused racist ideas
------------------------therefore------------------------------
People who attended CPAC in 2013 are racist

Since a negligible percentage of people who attended CPAC are racist, it is illogical to conclude that people who attended CPAC are racist.

Actually, your conclusion isn't valid either.
This is all that can be drawn from the article: Some (1% or more) people who attended CPAC support the socioeconomic positioning of Black Americans being made lower than White Americans.

I reproduced her argument to demonstrate that it was illogical. I then stated why it was illogical. If you disagree with the latter part, then I refer you to statistical syllogisms:

General form
X% of F's are G's
I is an F
--------------------------
I is a G

Positive
Most investors are smart
Austen is an investor
----------------------------
Austen is smart

Negative
Few WVU students are rich
Joe is a JMU student
-------------------------------
Joe is not rich


Even if 30% of CPAC attendees were racist, it would be illogical to conclude that CPAC attendees are racist, because a higher percentage are not racist than are racist. http://tinyurl.com...

The syllogisms you've reproduced refer only to degrees of strength, on the basis of accuracy. I'm talking about what can be absolutely drawn from the article posted. Your reproduction isn't structurally fallacious, it just fails to capture the meaning of the article.

Why do you think so?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 1:09:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 1:05:32 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/22/2013 12:48:35 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/22/2013 12:43:54 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/22/2013 12:30:41 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/22/2013 12:26:17 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Erroneous statistical syllogism

10,000 people attended CPAC in 2013
1 person who attended CPAC in 2013 espoused racist ideas
------------------------therefore------------------------------
People who attended CPAC in 2013 are racist

Since a negligible percentage of people who attended CPAC are racist, it is illogical to conclude that people who attended CPAC are racist.

Actually, your conclusion isn't valid either.
This is all that can be drawn from the article: Some (1% or more) people who attended CPAC support the socioeconomic positioning of Black Americans being made lower than White Americans.

I reproduced her argument to demonstrate that it was illogical. I then stated why it was illogical. If you disagree with the latter part, then I refer you to statistical syllogisms:

General form
X% of F's are G's
I is an F
--------------------------
I is a G

Positive
Most investors are smart
Austen is an investor
----------------------------
Austen is smart

Negative
Few WVU students are rich
Joe is a JMU student
-------------------------------
Joe is not rich


Even if 30% of CPAC attendees were racist, it would be illogical to conclude that CPAC attendees are racist, because a higher percentage are not racist than are racist. http://tinyurl.com...

The syllogisms you've reproduced refer only to degrees of strength, on the basis of accuracy. I'm talking about what can be absolutely drawn from the article posted. Your reproduction isn't structurally fallacious, it just fails to capture the meaning of the article.

Why do you think so?

I think the problem is that you are reading too much into the conclusion. If 2 CPAC attendees are racist, then it is perfectly accurate to say "CPAC attendees support slavery"; if you interpret it as "Most" or "All" or "In general", of course, we need more numbers, and the statistics matter. But imagine it was a a murder, which we wouldn't have the same connotative associations with:

2 CPAC attendees murder a bum.

The headline reads: "CPAC attendees murder bum!"

It is accurate, and from context we know they don't mean "Most" or "all" "CPAC attendees murder bum!". In the context here, though, you're inferring more than is technically present becaus ewhen someone phrases it the way royal did, they often are intending to indicate that "X in general did Y".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 1:18:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 1:09:23 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I think the problem is that you are reading too much into the conclusion. If 2 CPAC attendees are racist, then it is perfectly accurate to say "CPAC attendees support slavery"; if you interpret it as "Most" or "All" or "In general", of course, we need more numbers, and the statistics matter. But imagine it was a a murder, which we wouldn't have the same connotative associations with:
2 CPAC attendees murder a bum. The headline reads: "CPAC attendees murder bum!" It is accurate, and from context we know they don't mean "Most" or "all" "CPAC attendees murder bum!". In the context here, though, you're inferring more than is technically present becaus ewhen someone phrases it the way royal did, they often are intending to indicate that "X in general did Y".

Beginning the conclusion with all, some, many, etc doesn't change the logical flow of the statistical syllogism. It seems unintuitive, but it's elementary critical reasoning.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 1:53:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 10:43:30 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Here is irrefutable video evidence of the incident.

https://www.youtube.com...

Oh, but that must be biased! Reality is biased and fake!

What I saw in that video was one dude making the "food and shelter comments," and then everyone laughing in a tone of shocked derision at the speaker. It's the same tone my liberal high school classmates laughed in whenever I said something in the classroom like "Abolition of the Securities and Exchange commission? Sounds great!"
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 2:37:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 1:18:38 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/22/2013 1:09:23 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I think the problem is that you are reading too much into the conclusion. If 2 CPAC attendees are racist, then it is perfectly accurate to say "CPAC attendees support slavery"; if you interpret it as "Most" or "All" or "In general", of course, we need more numbers, and the statistics matter. But imagine it was a a murder, which we wouldn't have the same connotative associations with:
2 CPAC attendees murder a bum. The headline reads: "CPAC attendees murder bum!" It is accurate, and from context we know they don't mean "Most" or "all" "CPAC attendees murder bum!". In the context here, though, you're inferring more than is technically present becaus ewhen someone phrases it the way royal did, they often are intending to indicate that "X in general did Y".

Beginning the conclusion with all, some, many, etc doesn't change the logical flow of the statistical syllogism. It seems unintuitive, but it's elementary critical reasoning.

Actually, yes it does. All (100%), Some (1% or greater), Many (Ambiguous, but implies at least two), Most (greater than 50%).
Tsar of DDO
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 8:48:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Somehow I knew somebody would bring up Margaret Sanger. Just as there's Godwin's law, there's Michael's law too. Any thread where some sort of racism or murder is discussed, it'll eventually tie into abortion, or eugenics. That's just the law. :P
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 11:21:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 2:37:01 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/22/2013 1:18:38 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/22/2013 1:09:23 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I think the problem is that you are reading too much into the conclusion. If 2 CPAC attendees are racist, then it is perfectly accurate to say "CPAC attendees support slavery"; if you interpret it as "Most" or "All" or "In general", of course, we need more numbers, and the statistics matter. But imagine it was a a murder, which we wouldn't have the same connotative associations with:
2 CPAC attendees murder a bum. The headline reads: "CPAC attendees murder bum!" It is accurate, and from context we know they don't mean "Most" or "all" "CPAC attendees murder bum!". In the context here, though, you're inferring more than is technically present becaus ewhen someone phrases it the way royal did, they often are intending to indicate that "X in general did Y".

Beginning the conclusion with all, some, many, etc doesn't change the logical flow of the statistical syllogism. It seems unintuitive, but it's elementary critical reasoning.

Actually, yes it does. All (100%), Some (1% or greater), Many (Ambiguous, but implies at least two), Most (greater than 50%).

I guess you know more about critical reasoning than my professor who has been teaching the class for over ten years and Merrilee Salmon who wrote our textbook. http://books.google.com...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 11:35:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 12:26:17 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Erroneous statistical syllogism

10,000 people attended CPAC in 2013
1 person who attended CPAC in 2013 espoused racist ideas
------------------------therefore------------------------------
People who attended CPAC in 2013 are racist

Since a negligible percentage of people who attended CPAC are racist, it is illogical to conclude that people who attended CPAC are racist.

This also applies to Rabbis, it seems.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 11:44:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 11:21:11 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

I guess you know more about critical reasoning than my professor who has been teaching the class for over ten years and Merrilee Salmon who wrote our textbook. http://books.google.com...

Why are you assuming it's a statistical syllogism, though? You created the syllogism, the original statement was not necessarily one, was it? It was a comment about some attendees (there was the speaker, and the clappers), they are attendees of CPAC, therefore it's an accurate statement unless you choose to interpret it as a general statement about CPAC attendees, which it technically wasn't.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Zaradi
Posts: 14,127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 11:49:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm pretty sure that out of all of the threads royal has made, Ober's tried to start a flame war in at least 99% of them.

Nothing else to contribute. Carry on.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 11:54:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 11:21:11 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/22/2013 2:37:01 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/22/2013 1:18:38 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/22/2013 1:09:23 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I think the problem is that you are reading too much into the conclusion. If 2 CPAC attendees are racist, then it is perfectly accurate to say "CPAC attendees support slavery"; if you interpret it as "Most" or "All" or "In general", of course, we need more numbers, and the statistics matter. But imagine it was a a murder, which we wouldn't have the same connotative associations with:
2 CPAC attendees murder a bum. The headline reads: "CPAC attendees murder bum!" It is accurate, and from context we know they don't mean "Most" or "all" "CPAC attendees murder bum!". In the context here, though, you're inferring more than is technically present becaus ewhen someone phrases it the way royal did, they often are intending to indicate that "X in general did Y".

Beginning the conclusion with all, some, many, etc doesn't change the logical flow of the statistical syllogism. It seems unintuitive, but it's elementary critical reasoning.

Actually, yes it does. All (100%), Some (1% or greater), Many (Ambiguous, but implies at least two), Most (greater than 50%).

I guess you know more about critical reasoning than my professor who has been teaching the class for over ten years and Merrilee Salmon who wrote our textbook. http://books.google.com...

I think you might have misunderstood what your professor was saying, or you haven't reached the point in the semester where you talk about this. Do you want me to explain this to you?
Tsar of DDO