meh.. i don't pay any attention to what anyone in the Congressional Black Caucus says anyways...all they do is racebait while discriminating against other congressmen based entirely on their race.
Real: Real - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary See definition #2The real definition? What does that mean?
Definiti0on: Definition - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary see definition #3
Now put the two together. No wonder you seem to be confused. You don't know how to work a dictionary.
Correct.How dictionary editors define a word is a ideological/political/sociological/etymological process.
All five of those definitions you quoted would be real definitions.Which of the following is the "real" definition?
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
First, there are five definitions there (that you quoted). Serious question: do you known how to use a dictionary?There are huge gaping inconsistencies between these two definitions.
Next, they aren't really that inconsistent, they are worded differently, but the first two in both dictionaries speak to a belief that race is a determining factor in qualitative differences between people, and that this relates to a belief in racial superiority. The second one relates to discriminatory practices based on race in both dictionaries.
The third definition you quoted from dictionary.com is not included by Websters.
This is true. But there was a reason that I quoted the specific definition that I was using for my argument from the start. It was because I anticipated equivocal arguments as rebuttals. Thank yu for not disappointing me.Merriam Webster doesn't allow for what Dictionary.com has as a stand-alone 3rd point.
Actually, they both talk about race being the determining factor in qualitative differences between people and how it relates to beliefs about superiority. Websters has that secondary belief about superiority as a requirement, while dictionary.com's definition does not have it as a requirement.Merriam Webster defines racism as believing that race is the PRIMARY determinant of traits but Dictionary.com defines racism as believing in INHERENT difference being determinative. What they agree on is the focus on determinative and on the broad superiority-inferiority framing.
None of them are wrong. They are all legitimate. This is why I try to make sure that people know the specific definition I am using for arguments such as these ones.If a dictionary definition is determinative, then how on earth can there be such wide variance in dictionary definitions? Which one is wrong?
Yes you do.Listen up asswipe, I don't hold racist ideas.
Then why do you constantly bring up race as a primary determining for IQ in evolution debates?Let's look at the definitions from the dictionary.
1.) I don't believe that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities
Then why do you constantly bring up race as a primary determining for IQ in evolution debates?2.) I utterly reject the notion that there can exist an inherent superiority in a particular race.
I clearly stated that I did not know if you did this.3.) I do not prejudge or discriminate solely on the basis of race.
Then why do you constantly bring up race as a primary determining for IQ in evolution debates?4.) I don't believe that there exist inherent differences between races and that these differences determine cultural or individual achievement.
I never said you did.5.) I don't hate people because of their race.
I clearly noted that you fit a specific dictionary definition, but also said I couldn't be sure if you met all of the definitions. I am correct. Your arguments about Racde and IQ with regards to evolution completely fit the first definition from both sources. You don't need to qualify for the other ones in order to qualify as racist.So, how do I qualify as a racist when I fail to meet the conditions specified in dictionaries?
I clearly specified which definition I was using. If you understood how to use a dictionary, you might understand how I did so.You see, you're invoking some peculiar definition of racism which is your own and not in the dictionary you quote, which captures the arguments that I've been making on this board.
Nice red herring. It doesn't change the fact that your beliefs are racist, by definition.You and these dictionary editors are not conversant with population genetics nor physical anthropology and you're invoking some platonic ideals about race which diverge quite significantly from the genetic basis for race. Population geneticists are not racists. The work that population geneticists do is not racism. The same for physical anthropologists. The people in these fields have a better and fuller understanding of race than do the linguists and etymologists who work on the editorial staffs of dictionary publishers.
Why? are you actually dumb enough to think that definition three at dictionary.com prevents definition 2 from webster's from being accurate? If so, then it explains a lot of your failures at reading comprehension. You'd be practically illiterate.Go and apologize to your grandmother, you fool, you bad grandson.
Oooohhhhhhh.... I'm very sorry for your troubles.See definition #3 of Dictionary.com.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
As for the 95% figure, it's just speculation on my part. But since I've actually attended Tea Party events, I do have first hand knowledge of the folks who make up the crowds at these events, so I have a little more knowledge than someone who gets their information from the left-wing media. How many Tea Party events have you attended? Did you watch the videos I presented earlier in the thread? And no, I don't speak for everyone in the "movement", but I have witnessed these events with my own two eyes and the left-wing media is lying. Just like the CBC is lying. Have you been able to provide us with that list of Congressmen who want to see them hanging from a tree yet? I mean since that's what kick-started this thread, maybe we can return to the actual topic at hand.
The welfare benefits and giveaways to the black community by Democrats have done more to hurt them than help. Most especially by destroying black families by making it more economically feasible for an unmarried woman to have more illegitimate children than it was to be married.
The words "primary" and "inherent" are not synonyms. The two definitions take on different meanings when modified by these two words. By your argument, that a dictionary definition is a true representation of a concept, there should not be two different meanings to the same specific instance of a concept, in this case, that race is a determinant of behavior. The Merriam Webster dictionary would allow someone to posit that race is a "SECONDARY determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" and thus escape being defined as a racist. The Dictionary.com definition allows someone to believe that "NON-INHERENT differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others" and escape being defined as a racist.Next, they aren't really that inconsistent, they are worded differently, but the first two in both dictionaries speak to a belief that race is a determining factor in qualitative differences between people, and that this relates to a belief in racial superiority. The second one relates to discriminatory practices based on race in both dictionaries.
Those are two totally different slants on the idea that they're trying to capture. The editors are doing a poor job of accurately defining the feature of racism that they target because they don't know enough about the topic to accurately define the parameters of the concept.
Yeah, yeah, sure. You quoted a definition that appealed to your sensibilities and you tried to pass it off as being the definitive statement on the issue. If you had quoted the Dictionary.com definition then your argument would have vanished into thin air. This selective referencing of evidence would, if you were in academia, get you shunned and would be severely damaging to your reputation. In the real world it just diminishes your credibility, and in your case, you don't have much of that left, so you should probably shepherd what little you have left with great care.The third definition you quoted from dictionary.com is not included by Websters.
This is true. But there was a reason that I quoted the specific definition that I was using for my argument from the start. It was because I anticipated equivocal arguments as rebuttals. Thank yu for not disappointing me.
This board as a search feature which allows for pretty specific search parameters to be used. Find me an instance where I've argued that race is a primary determinant for IQ.Then why do you constantly bring up race as a primary determining for IQ in evolution debates?
I know precisely what I've written, I know precisely the points that I'm making, I know precisely what those points mean. If you're interjecting your own interpretations then the fault lies with your reasoning ability. If you believe that you have evidence that I've written something which meets the strict definition of racism that you're referencing, then by all means present the evidence, but make damn sure that it meets the threshold that you've been arguing is found in the definition found in the Merriam Webster dictionary. You do understand what it means to argue that something is a primary determinant, don't you? In the case of this racism discussion, it means that one must be arguing that a person's race is the quality that is the biggest factor in determining human traits and capacities. To a geneticist that definition is gobbledygook. Good luck on your hunt for my "incriminating statements."
So, of all the definitions of racism that can be invoked, your beef with me is that I argue that there is a genetic basis to IQ and that there is a genetic basis to race. Neither of these positions meet the criteria for racism. I've never argued that race is a primary determinant and I've never argued that inherent difference between population groups determine cultural or individual achievement. Both of these concepts trade on a very simplistic notion of what race is. What they both do correctly though is identify simplistic determinist thinking as a necessary, but not sufficient condition for racism. They both build on the notion that race is some essential element, a Platonic ideal. Evolutionary sciences are NOT racism. You may want to tar them as racist, and believe me you're not alone, people like you did a very nice job in killing the first iteration of the Human Genome Diversity Project by labeling science as racism. Anti-science and ignorance and name-calling can only last for so long before science climbs out from under the ton of manure that people like you dump on it. Closed minded, anti-science advocates like yourself are easy to deal with. You don't deal with logic nor with facts and so logic and facts can be used to show the world how close-minded, addle-brained and ideologically driven you are. Screaming racism at things you don't understand is the same as screaming witch at the things you don't understand.
It's sad that we still have such bigoted racists as this still in Congress.
Second, appointing blacks to office doesn't mean you're doing much for blacks. By that logic, I should say the Democratic Party is the absolutely least racist organization because it has a black president right now, but I'm sure you wouldn't like that.
"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to." - W. C. Fields