• 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!

Pragmatism and Racism

Should pragmatist be charged with provoking hate crimes?

  • Yes, pragmatism is provocative.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes, pragmatism leads to prejudice.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, pragmatism is not provocative.

    Votes: 3 100.0%

  • No, pragmatism does not lead to prejudice.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    3
Connery said:
Yes, nonetheless , it does not support your theory, "pragmatic thinking in society encourages racist (among generally prejudiced) thought in general"
Click to expand...

My point was about attention spans not being the same, so when pragmatism is broadcast, it hits wide and narrow attention spans alike.

(Even so, you just proved pragmatism does because you merely looked at the surface of what I wrote rather than looking at what's beneath the surface.)
 
Daktoria said:
My point was about attention spans not being the same, so when pragmatism is broadcast, it hits wide and narrow attention spans alike.

(Even so, you just proved pragmatism does because you merely looked at the surface of what I wrote rather than looking at what's beneath the surface.)
Click to expand...

I have thought about your op quite extensively. My answer is still the same should you wish to glean some arcane meaning from my response I wish you well with it.
 
Daktoria said:
In other words, you're prejudiced towards weight, but not race.

Evaluating function versus form isn't practical to everyone.
Click to expand...

I'm not. I'm not into sports.

In anycase everyone is prejudiced and it has nothing to do with pragmaticism. Do you feel love for someone? If so then why don't you feel love for the murderer? The rapist? How about the one time class bully from a school that got teacher of the year award? Would you feel the same about him/her as others that never experianced that bullying? Being prejudiced is not always a bad thing. There are times when being prejudiced is valid, like against murderers, rapists etc etc.

Just because you are prejudiced against something/someone does not mean that you are racist though. Racism isn't about pragmaticism anyways. It's about hate and fear. The fear of things different from you and which you don't understand. The hate of the things that you fear.
 
Daktoria said:
My point was about attention spans not being the same, so when pragmatism is broadcast, it hits wide and narrow attention spans alike.
Click to expand...

And that is pragmaticisms fault how? It is not the pragmaticism that makes racist dertminations. It is the individuals.
 
Daktoria said:
Pragmatism and the Problem of Race - Bill E. Lawson, Donald F. Koch - Google Books

This is an excellent article on how encouraging pragmatic thinking in society encourages racist (among generally prejudiced) thought in general.

It's common sense really. People's attention spans are only so wide, so when we demand that people make decisions a certain way, that decision making process will carry over throughout life.

Therefore, people who encourage pragmatism should be charged with provocation of hate crimes.
Click to expand...

If we're going to criminalize pragmatists then I'm going to need a bigger house just to eat breakfast.

wmc100322b.jpg
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'm not. I'm not into sports.

In anycase everyone is prejudiced and it has nothing to do with pragmaticism. Do you feel love for someone? If so then why don't you feel love for the murderer? The rapist? How about the one time class bully from a school that got teacher of the year award? Would you feel the same about him/her as others that never experianced that bullying? Being prejudiced is not always a bad thing. There are times when being prejudiced is valid, like against murderers, rapists etc etc.

Just because you are prejudiced against something/someone does not mean that you are racist though. Racism isn't about pragmaticism anyways. It's about hate and fear. The fear of things different from you and which you don't understand. The hate of the things that you fear.
Click to expand...

Feelings =/= thoughts.
Wants =/= needs.
Strategy =/= morality.

Aside from that, no, we don't have to tolerate the intolerant. That would be hypocrisy.
 
Kal'Stang said:
A person is defined by what they do, not what they are made of.
Click to expand...

What about the practice of evaluating what someone can do before seeing someone do anything?
 
Kal'Stang said:
And that is pragmaticisms fault how? It is not the pragmaticism that makes racist dertminations. It is the individuals.
Click to expand...

That's like blaming weak people for getting sick after everyone's been sneezed on.

You're also prejudiced against dumb people now. Everyone doesn't have attention to spare in developing multiple decision making methods.
 
samsmart said:
If we're going to criminalize pragmatists then I'm going to need a bigger house just to eat breakfast.

View attachment 67133590
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with using pragmatism in your private life because you're not exposing the thought process to others.

When it's publicly exposed, it pollutes others' minds who can't necessarily handle it while remaining unprejudiced.
 
Daktoria said:
Feelings =/= thoughts.
Wants =/= needs.
Strategy =/= morality.
Click to expand...

What about when feelings do equal thoughts, wants do equal needs and strategy does equal morality? Ever considered that possible?

Aside from that, no, we don't have to tolerate the intolerant. That would be hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

I can't figure what you're talking about from the quote and your response.
 
Daktoria said:
There's nothing wrong with using pragmatism in your private life because you're not exposing the thought process to others.

When it's publicly exposed, it pollutes others' minds who can't necessarily handle it while remaining unprejudiced.
Click to expand...

Well, THAT's a scary argument.
 
ecofarm said:
Well, THAT's a scary argument.
Click to expand...

I know. It scares me how many idiots are treated like adults today without having to demonstrate maturity.

They're exposed to pop culture on a daily basis, and many of them take it seriously. They don't care about logical fallacies because everyone around uses the same bad logic.

Pragmatism is a very dangerous idea because it allows for imperfect solutions. In politics that means expecting some people to fall through the cracks for the good of society. Furthermore, nobody cares because dead men tell no tales.

A perfect example of this is how affirmative activists don't care if some white, straight, males suffer just so minorities can recover. They say society is a collective, and that individuals who want to be treated with respect are selfish.
 
Daktoria said:
Pragmatism and the Problem of Race - Bill E. Lawson, Donald F. Koch - Google Books

This is an excellent article on how encouraging pragmatic thinking in society encourages racist (among generally prejudiced) thought in general.

It's common sense really. People's attention spans are only so wide, so when we demand that people make decisions a certain way, that decision making process will carry over throughout life.

Therefore, people who encourage pragmatism should be charged with provocation of hate crimes.
Click to expand...


Yes, this drivel matches you exactly.

Are you in some college course for which you have to write a paper and want us to help out?

It is dogmatic thinking, not pragmatic thinking, that supports racism. Only a racist would claim that reasoning supports his/her racist opinions as it is claiming that racism can be supported rationally as opposed to based upon beliefs.
 
ecofarm said:
Well, THAT's a scary argument.
Click to expand...

I think I would interprete his statement as meaning a person can be a racist and foster that racism in terms of him/herself, but should keep quiet about that self to others and in public. Yes, scary.
 
Daktoria said:
Would you agree it's pragmatic to conclude that Kenyans are good at running Marathons, or that blacks excel at basketball or football?
Click to expand...


No. Looking at such competitors from ethnic or racial perspectives is dogmatic racism. 99% of Kenyans are not superior at running marathons and 99% of African Americans do not excel at basketball or football more than others. It is dogmatic racism (by you) to fixate on the 1% reasoning, ignoring the decisive other 99%.

For example, you could have stated that tall people excel at basketball and that people from regions of high altitudes and hot climates where walking long distances has been a social requirement for countless generations excel at track events. But YOU picked RACE/ethnicity and claimed THAT was your basis for what you call logic, when I call it based in dogmatic racism.

You are making your case for racism that is a fairly old one at the academic level - calling it being pragmatic.
 
joko104 said:
No. Looking at such competitors from ethnic or racial perspectives is dogmatic racism. 99% of Kenyans are not superior at running marathons and 99% of African Americans do not excel at basketball or football more than others. It is dogmatic racism (by you) to fixate on the 1% reasoning, ignoring the decisive other 99%.

For example, you could have stated that tall people excel at basketball and that people from regions of high altitudes and hot climates where walking long distances has been a social requirement for countless generations excel at track events. But YOU picked RACE/ethnicity and claimed THAT was your basis for what you call logic, when I call it based in dogmatic racism.

You are making your case for racism that is a fairly old one at the academic level - calling it being pragmatic.
Click to expand...

When people don't have the attention to spare, dogma and practice are the same thing.

The question at hand deals with comparing elites as well. 99% of people in the world don't even play basketball competitively.
 
joko104 said:
I think I would interprete his statement as meaning a person can be a racist and foster that racism in terms of him/herself, but should keep quiet about that self to others and in public. Yes, scary.
Click to expand...

Proposing that some things are ok, but only underground - is messed up. Any way we cut it.
 
What you are arguing is a very old topic.

There was a college professor who taught that as a matter of scientific fact, people of African heritage are stronger and physically tougher than those of European ancestry, but that people of European ancestry had superior intellect. To prove the latter, he claimed that it was proven that of equal body size, more beans would fit into the brain cavity of European skulls than African's skulls.

For that, he argued society was harming African-Americans by denying truth including in education. That African-Americans should be trained towards manual skills jobs, while whites more towards non-physical labor skills. Of course, in real terms he was arguing that whites should be management and blacks should be their laborers.

Ultimately he was fired. But whether his teaching should be allowed at a state university was debated a long time and from almost every direction - including your's in his defense - until finally someone asked "is that even true?"

Turned out it was a lie. There was no evidence whatsoever that Europeans had larger brains than Africans.
 
Daktoria said:
Pragmatism and the Problem of Race - Bill E. Lawson, Donald F. Koch - Google Books

This is an excellent article on how encouraging pragmatic thinking in society encourages racist (among generally prejudiced) thought in general.

It's common sense really. People's attention spans are only so wide, so when we demand that people make decisions a certain way, that decision making process will carry over throughout life.

Therefore, people who encourage pragmatism should be charged with provocation of hate crimes.
Click to expand...

I'll admit that I blew through the article, however my opinion is that pragmatism is not at the root of racism, but rather leadership is. We find prejudice examined by Nietzsche to be quite simply a matter of social acceptability as determeed by the leader(s) of a given society. Pragmatism is no more than the effect of the cause: I don't think Dewy understood that at the time. Neither did the poor south prior to the Civil War.

Philosophy of course is a pragmatic inquiry: the trouble with predjudice however is that it is a metaphysical thing that protects us from poisonous foods on the primal level, and feeds social acceptability on the level of racism. Fear as a factor of rascism is only the result of desiring to remain socially accepted. This fear of course carried no weight in pre civil war Lousiana. Racism in this day and age of course is only used to advance a specific rhetoric on one side or the other of the issue.
 
Daktoria said:
I know. It scares me how many idiots are treated like adults today without having to demonstrate maturity.

They're exposed to pop culture on a daily basis, and many of them take it seriously. They don't care about logical fallacies because everyone around uses the same bad logic.

Pragmatism is a very dangerous idea because it allows for imperfect solutions. In politics that means expecting some people to fall through the cracks for the good of society. Furthermore, nobody cares because dead men tell no tales.

A perfect example of this is how affirmative activists don't care if some white, straight, males suffer just so minorities can recover. They say society is a collective, and that individuals who want to be treated with respect are selfish.
Click to expand...


I can’t think of any situation where some white, straight, males suffer for any reason especially so minorities can recover. In fact I can't think of any successful demographic group that has suffered when some minority recovers. Please describe a real one for me.
Then, what is an “affirmative activist”? Could that be someone that is promoting table tennis for its health benefits and because it uses less space than other sports? Your terms are not specific .
 
OhIsee.Then said:
I can’t think of any situation where some white, straight, males suffer for any reason especially so minorities can recover. In fact I can't think of any successful demographic group that has suffered when some minority recovers. Please describe a real one for me.
Then, what is an “affirmative activist”? Could that be someone that is promoting table tennis for its health benefits and because it uses less space than other sports? Your terms are not specific .
Click to expand...

Here's a hint.

Every white, straight, male doesn't come from an affluent background. Many come from dilapidated backgrounds where their upbringings coincide with affirmatively active policies. The implication is affirmative activists don't care as long as minorities become successful.

A perfect example of this is the bullying epidemic where white, straight, males are discriminated against. If they're bullied by minorities, the minorities are given an excuse to be let off the hook due to their supposedly difficult circumstances. White, straight, males are humiliated into pragmatism, and expected to suffer for the greater good.
 
Daktoria said:
That's like blaming weak people for getting sick after everyone's been sneezed on.

You're also prejudiced against dumb people now. Everyone doesn't have attention to spare in developing multiple decision making methods.
Click to expand...

How in the world did you get all that out of what I said?
 
Daktoria said:
Here's a hint.

Every white, straight, male doesn't come from an affluent background. Many come from dilapidated backgrounds where their upbringings coincide with affirmatively active policies. The implication is affirmative activists don't care as long as minorities become successful.

A perfect example of this is the bullying epidemic where white, straight, males are discriminated against. If they're bullied by minorities, the minorities are given an excuse to be let off the hook due to their supposedly difficult circumstances. White, straight, males are humiliated into pragmatism, and expected to suffer for the greater good.
Click to expand...
Please, you write "a perfect example", but you don't give an example. You suggest there is a bunch. Give us some examples you are thinking of.
Also, note that there are minorities of minorities that turn their minority status into a badge of honor as a way to win. Some 'whites' copy this in their developed style. These cases don't count in this topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom