[edited to get below the 5000 character max]
I did answer the question.
No, you did not answer the question ("
Are we pretending that the above represents the definition of "culture" or what?").
Who the **** cares, you did not write the article we are debating.
Apparently you care. You asked me to answer my question as to whether I think some cultures are better than others (and you haven't answered that question yet either). Am I supposed to get my answer to that question from Buckley ("You mean are some "races" better than others? Why don't you answer your own question?")?
You've dodged that question quite a few times, now. I answered it immediately when you asked it of me. What accounts for the difference?
Well see, you DO have something in common with Buckley, I have no doubt there is a lot more to it.
Okay, but aren't you the same guy who insists he answered a question he dodged and who apparently thinks I should go to Buckley's article in order to find out whether I think some cultures are better than others?
It isn't a matter of opinion:
"Denying universal suffrage isn't the same as denying blacks the vote."
You still don't understand that your reasoning is invalid, eh?
You supported it"
"Buckley provides an argument for denying universal suffrage".
I am sorry to have to break it to you, but repeating an invalid argument does not make it valid. If you added the true premise that denying universal suffrage equals racism then you've have an argument. But the premise won't work because (by analogy) beer isn't Coors.
I suspect you know nothing of the construction of deductive syllogisms.
You are still under the impression that your nonsensical word order argument is the subject of the debate. News Flash....it is not.
It's the key to understanding one of your fundamental errors. The sooner you get that through your head, the better. Beer isn't Coors even if Coors is beer. Don't fight it.
Actually, I don't have to answer any of your tangents about what your definitions are, you are not nor are your questions the subject of the debate.
I totally agree, with the caveat that I haven't asked any tangential questions about what my definitions are. I ask questions to fill in the blanks of the argument you don't know how to construct. Your refusal to answer simply leaves blanks in your argument. That's fine by me. You can show your argument is invalid by showing the lack of capacity for expressing it as a substitute for expressing it and letting me point out the obvious flaws.
I'll point out that I have predicted the outcome if you were ever induced to express your argument in full in either of two ways, both of which result in failure.
No, you already acknowledged that Buckley equated culture with race:
I've shown how you manipulated the quotation by leaving out relevant material that shows that "advanced race" refers directly and only to the white culture of the time.
I'll correct you on that yet again: Buckley used "white race" to refer to white culture (Coors is beer). He was not using "white culture" to refer to race (beer is Coors).
If the advanced race is white, then Buckley is clearly making a racist argument.
That could follow if beer is Coors (by analogy) and you get to switch out one definition of "racist" for another.
But it's an invalid argument because of the equivocation and ambiguity. To sustain validity in an argument the key terms are not allowed to drift in meaning. So if there is a "race" attached to culture it is not assumed that the "race" is identified by physical traits such as skin color. Instead, the "race" is identified by whatever aspects of the culture are held in common. That conception of "race" empties the term of its extremist implications (the ones found in racism based on physical characteristics). And that deflates, in turn, your argument that Buckley counts as an extremist.
With the argument you're trying to use, Buckley is a "racist" in the same way that pretty much everybody is counted as a racist these days. And when everyone is "racist" it isn't an extreme position.
It really is not that difficult.
It probably seems pretty easy if your thinking on it is shallow enough. That's the lure of the fallacies of ambiguity.
It's past time for you to concede.
http://cis01.central.ucv.ro/revistadestiintepolitice/files/numarul54_2017/11.pdf
