Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p
I'm going to nitpick here on the stress that you're putting on the word "valid."
You are correct. Valid was not the word I should have used. I should have said "legitimate" to encompass my meaning better without the risk of confusing people. while this is simply replacing the word with its synonym, it would prevent confusion for those who have difficulty discerning the correct definition for a word based solely on teh context. It is obvious that valid in that context could not refer to logical validity because it did not describe a logical argument, but if someone has difficulty determining the correct definition by context, I can certainly see how they'd be confused.
My apologies.
Appeal to dictionary doesn't automatically equate with validity.
No. It prevents others from attempting to use equivocation as the fallacy upon which they base their arguments, though. And it also provides evidence that the definition being used by is a real one, and a consistent one instead of a made-up one.
By doing so, it
should prevent equivocal rebuttals by people who are unhappy about the real definition of the word. But as we will see, not always.
The ability to shape language is a pretty powerful tool and ideologues try to capture that high ground and shape debates by getting in front of word definitions and pulling society towards a goal compared to the other way that words and definitions achieve prominence which is from how they are used and the usage is pushed forward to the point that it is classified.
Misusing words doesn't change their meaning. Irony still doesn't mean coincidence just because people repeatedly abuse the ever living **** out of the word. The reason I cite the dictionary is to prevent people who are ignorant of the real definition of a word form believing their made-up definition is a legitimate definition. It isn't and it won't be until such time as it becomes a real definition which can be cited in a dictionary.
A very common ground level definition of racism is "one who dislikes a person, or hates a group, solely because of their race." This usage is not defined in the dictionary and yet it is widely believed to categorize racists from non-racists.
If it is not a dictionary defnition, it is not a real definition. Using it in your rebuttal is merely equivocating because you don't
like the real definition of the word. My normal response ot peopel who don't like the definition of a word is "Tough **** if you don't like it. That doesn't make your arguments which use a fake definition any less equivocal."
The ability to cast a wider net and make more people racists is seen as a powerful tool in shaping society towards a preferred direction.
And the ability to pretend that the definition casts a much smaller net is a great way to try and use equivocation to avoid being
accurately labeled a racist. simply put: If you don't like the definition because it means you are something you would
rather not be, then tough ****. I'm of the belief that if a person is strong enough to hold views that can accurately be given a label they'd rather not have,m then they should have the balls to accept that label. If they don't have the balls to accept the label, then they shouldn't hold the views.
Using racist as a shaming word can get people to modify their behavior. So control of the language is a political act. When you equate validity with a political act, you're making a false equivalence.
I used the word valid correctly for that context. There is no false equivalence when the word is used correctly for that context and in a non-equivocal way (i.e. my use of the word did not change in the middle of my argument, because it was not a part of my actual argument, instead it was used as a description of one of my premises.)
I also did not use the word "racist" as a shaming word. That's just something you made up. Perhpas because you are ashamed of your racism? I don't know, but I personally think you should have the balls to wear the label as proudly and as doggedly as you promote the beliefs that earn you the label.
Your grandmother thinks, I assume, that racists are people who hate people of other races. She doesn't think of herself as a racist because she doesn't have any hatred to blacks.
this is because she has a false definition of the word. Ignorance is no defense.
You're condemning her as a racist because you agree with the political definition of racism being the observation of statistically significant behavior patterns observed within a group.
Ah, the part in bold is where your strawman lies. I knew there's be one with you, RD. There always is. Accurately labeling someone something is
not condemning them. That's your own imagination creating that thing. If anything,m her
views, beliefs, and actions are what "condemn" her to that label. I am merely applying it
accurately.
