• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

I wasn't defending racism...

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

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.

Pray tell, what policies that the Tea Party supports are "racist"?
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

Question: A lot of people keep saying that Carson and anyone who calls the Tea Party racist is a racist, but...the Tea Party isn't a race, so how can calling Tea Partiers racist be racist? Did I miss the part where they said something about all white people or are you guys just throwing the word "racist" around because you're upset?

I called him a "bigoted racist". He's bigoted because of his unfounded accusations and he's a racist for being a part of a group that only allows admission based upon one race.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

Racism comes in many forms. I don't know that he would consider blacks superior to whites when he joined a group that allows in only blacks, but it's still racist. He has no standing to be calling anyone (falsely at that) anything.
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.

What do we call groups that only allow admission based upon race?
I don't know, but apparently I'm the Grand Dragon of the KKK, so I'm probably not the best person to ask.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

I called him a "bigoted racist". He's bigoted because of his unfounded accusations and he's a racist for being a part of a group that only allows admission based upon one race.
That doesn't make him a racist, sorry.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

Pray tell, what policies that the Tea Party supports are "racist"?
I never said that the Tea Party supports racist policies.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.


:prof 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.

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:

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/break...n-warming-call-me-crazy-3.html#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.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

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:
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.
 
Funny how the last senator or congressman to be a Klansman that was in office is a democrat not a republican.
Eh, I'm bored of this conversation. Go read the history of the Republican Party and get back to me.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

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.

Actually considering that such hiring practices are meant to counter a structural deficit in the hiring of minorities... in this non-bizarro world. I can say... yeah.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

:prof appeal to authority is not a fallacy when teh "authority" being appealed to is actually the authority that defines what is being discussed.

Merriam Webster dictionary is not the authority which defines what the term racism means. For that claim to be true we'd have to discount other dictionaries which offer different definitions.

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

Well, so much for your contention that an appeal to authority is valid when the authority is the entity which defines a term. Now he have conflicting authorities and meaning is muddled.

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.

And below you claim that you're in academia. Give me a break. This addled thinking is good for comedic effect but really doesn't belong in a serious discussion. Now the people you're debating are supposed to know what your favored dictionary is.

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).

You asked and I delivered. Do you not recall our PM exchange. I followed the practice I use with everyone, so I'm not revealing any privileged information of our discussion. For arguments that I've already made in an earlier thread, I provide a link to that discussion and all of the supporting evidence I cite. I won't jump through hoops where the person I'm corresponding with wants me to repeat, for their benefit, all the work that I've already done. I would tell anyone, and I usually do, to get off their lazy butt and read the link(s) I sent them and then I inform them if they had any further questions that arose from that material that I'd be happy to engage them on those questions. I give you my permission to release that e-mail if you think it helps your case in this matter.

So when you make an argument that genetics alone is the cause of racial variance in IQ by way of evolution

If you're going to make accusations then you should at least TRY to base them on evidence:


RiverDad: This is actually the least controversial point I've made in this entire discussion. Those numbers are seen all throughout the literature. No one is disputing them. The dispute, as it is, centers on whether the numbers arise from genes, environment or a combination of both factors. The extremist creationists argue for environment, the moderates argue for genes and environment. No one argues for genes alone.


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.

The entire superiority-inferiority framework presupposes that it is possible to rank racial groups from superior to inferior. On what basis does this ranking occur? Therein lies the fallacy of this framework. We are all the sum of many parts. Are taller people superior to shorter people? How about the tall child molester, is he superior to the short nurse? How about smarter people, are they superior to less intelligent people? How about the smart serial killer, is he superior to the average intelligence person who is a cop working to put him in prison.

Your recognize this and that's why you're engaging in convoluted reasoning to twist meaning into the tight definitional box that you're trying to construct. You conveniently abandon your own preferred definition, see Merriam Webster:


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​


They don't go through these logical restrictions that you're invoking in order to narrowly define superiority, they refer to a rank ordering of races. Thus, those who believe in a rank ordering of races are racists. They meet the conditions specified in the dictionary definition. This is really pathetic to watch. In this debate you're arguing that the Merriam Webster dictionary is the authoritative source, that we should all know that this is so, that words have precise meanings, and that you know I'm a racist, not because I meet the definition of one, but because you convince yourself that if you twist dictionary definitions into a Möbius strip then all will turn out fine on the other side of the Looking Glass.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

which policies are intended to offset the negative impact of a history of discrimination based on race

Yea lets correct racist policies and history of the past by creating, implementing and using overt racist policies in the present. Yea that's perfect liberal logic
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

Yea lets correct racist policies and history of the past by creating, implementing and using overt racist policies in the present. Yea that's perfect liberal logic

Right, like that illogical, liberal NFL, for example, which attempts to achieve competitive parity by giving lower performing teams higher draft picks and lighter schedules. Sooo illogical.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

Question: A lot of people keep saying that Carson and anyone who calls the Tea Party racist is a racist, but...the Tea Party isn't a race, so how can calling Tea Partiers racist be racist? Did I miss the part where they said something about all white people or are you guys just throwing the word "racist" around because you're upset?

It's not racist, it's plain ignorance with a little fear thrown in and sprinkled with the ridiculous.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

Right, like that illogical, liberal NFL, for example, which attempts to achieve competitive parity by giving lower performing teams higher draft picks and lighter schedules. Sooo illogical.

Oh, oh, can I play too?


In many sports leagues around the world, promotion and relegation is a process that takes place at the end of each season. Through it, teams are transferred between divisions based on their performance that season. The best-ranked teams in each division are promoted to the next-highest division, and at the same time, the worst-ranked teams in the higher division are relegated to the lower division. This process continues down through several levels, with teams being exchanged between levels 1 and 2, levels 2 and 3, levels 3 and 4, and so on. Sometimes, qualifying rounds are used to promote and relegate. . . . .

The system is the defining characteristic of the "European" form of professional sports league organization. Promotion and relegation have the effect of maintaining a hierarchy of leagues and divisions, according to the relative strength of their teams.​


I'm not really sure what this diversion is adding to the conversation but hey, sports leagues are good things to discuss too.
 
Eh, I'm bored of this conversation. Go read the history of the Republican Party and get back to me.

All the way back to Abraham Lincoln?

Or perhaps only as far back as Orval Faubus, George Wallace or maybe just to Robert Byrd.
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

Right, like that illogical, liberal NFL, for example, which attempts to achieve competitive parity by giving lower performing teams higher draft picks and lighter schedules. Sooo illogical.

Are you suggesting that Black people are a lower performing team?
 
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

Oh, oh, can I play too?

In many sports leagues around the world, promotion and relegation is a process that takes place at the end of each season. Through it, teams are transferred between divisions based on their performance that season. The best-ranked teams in each division are promoted to the next-highest division, and at the same time, the worst-ranked teams in the higher division are relegated to the lower division. This process continues down through several levels, with teams being exchanged between levels 1 and 2, levels 2 and 3, levels 3 and 4, and so on. Sometimes, qualifying rounds are used to promote and relegate. . . . .

The system is the defining characteristic of the "European" form of professional sports league organization. Promotion and relegation have the effect of maintaining a hierarchy of leagues and divisions, according to the relative strength of their teams.​


I'm not really sure what this diversion is adding to the conversation but hey, sports leagues are good things to discuss too.

Well, let me see if I can fill in the blanks for you. Slavery, followed by Jim Crow, put the black race at a huge disadvantage in a myriad of ways. Therefore, in order to redress those wrongs and to even the playing field a bit, we engage in affirmative action. Correcting a past wrong is not repeating the past wrong.

Or we could use another analogy. Let's say that you defrauded me out of $10,000, and I take you to court and receive a judgment of $10,000 against you. Am I just as bad as you, because we both took $10,000 from each other? No. The $10,000 I received was to redress a wrong that was done to me.

So not really a diversion at all, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom