Page 14 of 93 FirstFirst ... 412131415162464 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 921

Thread: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree'

  1. #131
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Pray tell, what policies that the Tea Party supports are "racist"?
    I never said that the Tea Party supports racist policies.

  2. #132
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Indeed you were. Trying to defend the policy of only allowing people in based upon being the proper race is defending racism. You should be ashamed.
    Okay, we're done talking now. Whenever people start the "you should be ashamed" stuff in any topic anywhere, any chance of intellectual debate is over.

  3. #133
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    Where did he make generalizations about whites? I don't see him saying anything about all whites being X or Y. You're accusations of racism are just silly.
    Here you go, defend away.

    I don't know, but apparently I'm the Grand Dragon of the KKK, so I'm probably not the best person to ask.
    You do know, you are just too cowardly to say. We call it racism.

  4. #134
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    Okay, we're done talking now. Whenever people start the "you should be ashamed" stuff in any topic anywhere, any chance of intellectual debate is over.
    That chance ended long ago.

  5. #135
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    Okay, we're done talking now. Whenever people start the "you should be ashamed" stuff in any topic anywhere, any chance of intellectual debate is over.
    I could honestly care less that Obama is brownish. What I care intensely about is his collectivist attitudes about socialism and using my dime to pay for his grand and unworkable schemes for "change".

    Give me any candidate that espouses jobs, constitutional rights, smaller government, a focus on domestic issues like infrastructure, actual education, a serious reduction in the welfare state, etc, etc and I don't care if that dude/gal is a purple left handed midget .... I will vote for him/her!

  6. #136
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    I never said that the Tea Party supports racist policies.
    What you said was this:


    Racism isn't required to be overt. You do realize that most people who call the Tea Party politicians racist do so, in part, because of the policies they support.


    Do you wish to rephrase any part of what you wrote? We all know that this is a debate board and we all type out our comments fairly quickly and sometimes there there's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip.

    Here's how your comment is being interpreted. You note that racism need need be overt. This implies that you're speaking of covert racism. Your next sentence remarkably ties into your first sentence by presenting an argument from TEA Party critics that accuses TEA Party supporters of racism because of their policy choices. Now because the TEA Party doesn't support any race-specific policies all we're left with is the suggestion that the TEA Party is motivated by covert racism and this is the reason that they support the cancellation of various spending programs. It's a remarkable coincidence that the second sentence is designed to provide evidence in support of the thesis of the first sentence. These do not look like two, unconnected thoughts, rather they look like two sentences which are forming an argument.

    This is why it appears to many people that you are indeed arguing that the TEA Party is supporting racist policies, specifically policies motivated by covert racism.

  7. #137
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    What you said was this:
    Racism isn't required to be overt. You do realize that most people who call the Tea Party politicians racist do so, in part, because of the policies they support.


    Do you wish to rephrase any part of what you wrote? We all know that this is a debate board and we all type out our comments fairly quickly and sometimes there there's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip.

    Here's how your comment is being interpreted. You note that racism need need be overt. This implies that you're speaking of covert racism. Your next sentence remarkably ties into your first sentence by presenting an argument from TEA Party critics that accuses TEA Party supporters of racism because of their policy choices. Now because the TEA Party doesn't support any race-specific policies all we're left with is the suggestion that the TEA Party is motivated by covert racism and this is the reason that they support the cancellation of various spending programs. It's a remarkable coincidence that the second sentence is designed to provide evidence in support of the thesis of the first sentence. These do not look like two, unconnected thoughts, rather they look like two sentences which are forming an argument.

    This is why it appears to many people that you are indeed arguing that the TEA Party is supporting racist policies, specifically policies motivated by covert racism.
    My argument is that many of those who call the Tea Party racist do so as the result of an analysis of polices that Tea Party members support. In other words, they look at "Tea Party policies" that affect minorities in ways that they perceive as negative and conclude that those who support the policies are racist. I haven't made any comment on whether or not I agree with their analysis since I don't have a position.

    This is really the crux of my point: If you support policies that affect any group, be prepared to be called prejudiced in some regard by the group in question and their supporters. It's not hard to understand why people would call the anti-Planned Parenthood Republicans sexist even when they're not. It's not hard to understand why people would call anti-gay marriage Democratics homophobic even when they're not. It shouldn't be hard to understand why people would call Republicans against funding social programs that benefit minorities racist even when they're not. When you support policies that affect a specific group, positively or negatively, people will automatically analyze your relationship with that group whether you're a Democrat or a Republican - these judgments don't just come out of blind prejudice or "race mongering".

    Again, I haven't made a personal judgment call on whether the policies are racist or not, but I do believe I have an understanding of how people come to their conclusions.

  8. #138
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    So we're back to the point I made originally - the definitions are the result of some political/ideological, etc process that is negotiated and debated amongst dictionary editors. Anyone who relies on appeal to dictionary as the basis for their argument is simply playing the appeal to authority logical fallacy.

    appeal to authority is not a fallacy when teh "authority" being appealed to is actually the authority that defines what is being discussed. For example, if I am talking about a law, and I appeal to the authority of the legislation which defines the law, I am not guilty of a fallacy.






    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.
    You seem to be under the impression that multiple, subtly different definitions cannot coexist. This is a false impression. If you qualify for the label of racist under any of the definitions, then the label is accurate when applied to you, so long as the person does not equivocate on which definition applies. Nobody escapes the label simply because they don't qualify under one specific definition. I made that clear in my posts by specifically pointing out that there was a difference in how the definitions would apply.

    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.

    the part in bold is just unsubstantiated nonsense you made up because you do not wish for your ideas to be labeled as racist. As I said, if you have them, then you should have the balls to accept the label when accurately applied.


    Second of all, there are different editors at different dictionaries. They are conveying the definition that they wish to convey.


    You quoted a definition that appealed to your sensibilities and you tried to pass it off as being the definitive statement on the issue.
    I quoted a real definition of the word that also happens to be one of the most common correct usages of the word and then clearly specified that this was the definition that I use. I don't give a rat's ass if you don't like that definition. As I said, tough ****. If you don't like it, invent a new language for yourself and then you can eliminate all of the real definitions of words that cause you to get a mental boo-boo because they aren't nice to be called. How's that sound?

    If you had quoted the Dictionary.com definition then your argument would have vanished into thin air.
    I used the same dictionary I always cite in my arguments. If you wish to know the exact meaning I am using for a word that might be ambiguous, look at that dictionary. If I am using a word incorrectly based on the definitions present in that dictionary, let me know and I will cease to use that word in that way and admit that I was using it incorrectly. You are under the false impression that I scoured a bunch of dictionaries looking for the one I wanted to use, but in truth, and you can check this, I use webster's as my primary dictionary in all debates.

    This selective referencing of evidence would, if you were in academia, get you shunned and would be severely damaging to your reputation.
    I am in academia, so spew your bull**** toward someone else who might be dumb enough to believe you know what you are talking about. what you inaccurately label as "selective referencing" is actually abiding by a standard. And any person too cowardly to actually cite their sources in a post (meaning you) shouldn't pretend to know anything about academia. You'd be busted out of any place for plagiarism for your lack of citations in posts (one's I've asked very kindly for sources for). So again, spew your bull**** elsewhere. I know that you don't know how to provide references adequately in a post. I've witnessed it in action and repeatedly requested references only to have those requests go unfulfilled. Not only would that damage your reputation in academia, it would get you removed from academia.

    So don't play pretend with me.

    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.
    No evidence exists which would imply that you are a competent judge of credibility. Whilst my credibility with you might be diminished based on the fact that I used a definition that you didn't like (and clearly stated that I was using that definition), I consider you to be an incompetent judge of credibility for various reasons, not the least of which being, an inability to use a dictionary with competence.


    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    A number of highly educated, upper middle class white couples and the children they adopted were studied over multiple decades. The children in the study were grouped as follows - biological children of the couples, children born to two white parents, children born to a white parent and a black parent, children born to two black parents. The racial variance in intelligence presented itself.

    If you contend that environment is the cause of racial variance, then the specific environmental factors which TOTALLY cause this variance must be factors other than maternal education, family socioeconomic status, neighborhood environment, child's peer network, quantity of school resources, quality of teachers, for these children were all raised in the same families and yet their IQs showed racial variance.

    You toss out a environmental factor that you think is responsible and I'll shoot it down. Then pick another one and I'll shoot it down. Pretty soon you're going to be pinning all your hopes and prayers on only a few variables, likely ones that are unmeasurable, and those variables WILL have to have an immensely powerful effect.

    This evolution-denying line of argument that you're advancing is precisely my complaint with liberals.

    Lastly, why does it matter if you already concede the IQ variance is there and that there hasn't been any real closing of the gap despite the trillions of dollars that we've dumped into a sinkhole based on the premise that environmental remediation will solve the problem? Here is the reality that we're living with, deal with it honestly.
    (Please note the complete and utter lack of citation here, despite direct reference to these studies. That's a big non-no in academia, so don't bother bull****ting with me about academic credibility anymore, mmmkay? You have none.)

    In response to:

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    The problem with this is that the IQ literature also shows that environment plays a significant role in determining IQ, which considerably hampers the hypothesis that the racial variance in IQ is caused by evolution.
    (Note the italics? That was present in the original.) Also take note that I did not say, as you falsely claimed, "...that environment is the cause of racial variance..." I said that the evidence about environment hampers the evolution hypothesis.

    In order to push your evolution hypothesis, you said that you could "shoot down" any environmental factor that may be a factor. Now, since you cravenly decided that you would not actually cite your sources with as little as the titles of the articles that you gathered your information from, I could not continue the discussion honestly because I would be forced to trust your interpretations of these data as accurate, something I am totally and completely unwilling to do given your penchant for not comprehending what you have read.

    While you might think that your argument was not based on a belief that racial factors are a primary or inherent determinant (whichever one you want to use), but when the above is taken in conjunction with this post 102 from the same thread:

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1059740102

    And your agreement with Risch about:

    "This shows that people's self-identified race/ethnicity is a nearly perfect indicator of their genetic background"

    You are actually incorporating the idea, through a near perfect correlation, that genetic background and racial identity are near perfect synonyms, if that statement by Risch is correct. This is because they become reversible due to the near perfection. genetic background would, by necessity, be a near perfect indicator of racial/ethnic self-identity if the reverse is true.

    So when you make an argument that genetics alone is the cause of racial variance in IQ by way of evolution, you are saying that it is an inherent difference between the races caused by the very thing that is a nearly perfect indicator of one's racial self-identity. Since you consider IQ to be an accurate measure of intelligence, and you believe that one race is inherently inferior in this regard (In general, with obvious allowances for exceptions to the rule), even if you consider all other traits to be equal, you must consider that race to be inherently inferior to the other, because if all things but one are equal, and that one thing is superior in one group over the other, then the whole thing is inferior due to the differences in that single trait.

    For example, if we have two cars that are identical in all but one trait, and that trait is gas mileage, then the car with the superior gas mileage is superior to the car with inferior gas mileage.

    Now, whether or not this particular argument is accurate has no bearing on whether or not it is racist. It is possible for a racist view to be accurate, despite what society might feel about the view or racism in general. The only thing that matters is that it fits the description of at least one real definition of the word racism. And it does. The one I specifically cited when I applied the term.

  9. #139
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    opposition to affirmative action policies
    Supporting race based hiring preferences and quotas makes one not a racist, but opposing race based hiring preferences and quotas makes on a racist or supporting racist policies? You do realize that this is not Bizzaro world or opposite world do you? Most sane logical thinking people know that if anything that race based hiring preferences and quotas are racist, not opposing race based hiring preferences and quotas.
    Last edited by jamesrage; 09-01-11 at 12:35 AM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  10. #140
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree'

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    Conservatives need to stop making this mistake. The constituents of the racist Democratic Party with the KKK and slavery have now become the constituents of the Republican Party over several voter shifts starting with FDR and ending with those in the Civil Rights Movements.
    Funny how the last senator or congressman to be a Klansman that was in office is a democrat not a republican.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

Page 14 of 93 FirstFirst ... 412131415162464 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •