Republican: Yes, We're Racist

So speaketh the white supremacist. You have no more credibility on this thread than you did on the last. You subscribe to a website called "White Man March" and then tell me about color as the most important thing to Dems? Aside from your own obvious obsession with race, hypocrisy seems to be an important part of your diet. White Man March indeed.

Yeah...they can. That's why they can say they aren't exclusive to Whites. And it's also why more people of color are Democrats than Republican. Blacks and Hispanics and women all have a say in the party. Republicans can't say that. The Democratic Party looks like America. The Republican Party doesn't. It looks like White America.

View attachment 26730

 

That you generally don't ruin your property.

Didn't you read the thread?

 

Seems pretty logical to hold beliefs that are considered racist.

It is racist to believe Whites and Blacks have different intelligence levels, yet the facts support this.

Therefore, racism in this instance is completely logical.

 

I appreciate you stepping up and owning your obsession with race. Thanks for taking the bait.

 

I asked you; "What part of people as property makes sense to you?" And this is the answer you give? That implies that you view people as property. Do you think that people as property makes sense to you?

 

No; try reading.

The argument was that slave masters kept relatively good care of their slaves; that was the speaker's logic.

I agree that if you view something as your property, then you are likely to take good care of it; that's opposed to the counter-argument that slaves were apparently routinely beaten and badly mistreated.

I suggest you go back to school if you cannot grasp what is actually being argued.

 

Good on you! Considering that Lindsey is a RINO's RINO, you can have him. Enjoy.

 

It seems to? I'm sure to you it "seems" to. But that doesn't demonstrate the logic. I'm asking you to show me the logic of that? What kind of reasoning process did you use to inform you of that conclusion? Inductive reasoning? Deductive reasoning? Which is it? Telling me that it "seems logical" to you doesn't demonstrate that you've used any logic at all? Are you using Aristotilian Logic, or is this rayznack logic?

Who's facts? Where are you getting these facts?

So you're saying this;
IF Whites are more intelligent than Blacks, THEN racism is justified.
Whites are more intelligent than Blacks
therefore: Racism is justifiable.

If P>Q
P
therefore Q.

Is that about it?

The problem is with your second premise. P2. Whites are more intelligent than Blacks. You state that as a fact. You haven't demonstrated that as true. You claim it as a fact. Perhaps you're citing the Bell Curve which was extremely controversial regarding its claims. Rutledge M. Dennis suggests that through sound-bites of works like Jensen's famous study on the achievement gap, and Herrnstein and Murray's book The Bell Curve, the media "paints a picture of Blacks and other people of color as collective biological illiterates—as not only intellectually unfit but evil and criminal as well," thus providing, he says "the logic and justification for those who would further disenfranchise and exclude racial and ethnic minorities." The very "logic" that you're employing here.

Critic Charles Lane pointed out that 17 of the researchers whose work is referenced by the book have also contributed to Mankind Quarterly, a journal of anthropology founded in 1960 in Edinburgh, which has been viewed as supporting the theory of the genetic superiority of the whites.

In his book The Bell Curve Wars: Race, Intelligence, and the Future of America, Steven Fraser writes that "by scrutinizing the footnotes and bibliography in The Bell Curve, readers can more easily recognize the project for what it is: a chilly synthesis of the work of disreputable race theorists and eccentric eugenicists".

Since the book provided statistical data supporting the assertion that blacks were, on average, less intelligent than whites, some people have feared that The Bell Curve could be used by extremists to justify genocide and hate crimes. ( I think they had you and a few others on this forum in mind) Much of the work referenced by the Bell Curve was funded by the Pioneer Fund, which aims to advance the scientific study of heredity and human differences, and has been accused of promoting scientific racism.

Evolutionary biologist Joseph L. Graves described The Bell Curve as an example of racist science, containing all the types of errors in the application of scientific method that have characterized the history of scientific racism:
1.claims that are not supported by the data given
2.errors in calculation that invariably support the hypothesis
3.no mention of data that contradicts the hypothesis
4.no mention of theories and data that conflict with core assumptions
5.bold policy recommendations that are consistent with those advocated by racists

So...this seems to be where you're drawing your conclusions from.

 

Keep trying. It's fun watching you squirm. You took the bait a long time ago, and swallowed it all. And by doing that you outed yourself as a white supremacist. You have no credibility here.

 

I did read it. I even quoted it. How does the idea of having the "masters" taking good care of their slaves, justify slavery? They're still slaves. Would you accept slavery as long as you were "taken care of" despite the occasional whippings and being forced to do work you didn't choose for yourself and do it without pay?

But the argument assumes that humans as property is logical to begin with. There is no rational justification for slavery. Slavery is coercion. You have no choice over your life. You are de-humanized into something equivalent as livestock or furniture. If you agree that humans can be property then you are justifying slavery on the basis of property and totally ignoring the fact of a rational being. But humans aren't property. So the justification doesn't exist. You have to accept a false premise to hold such a view. Rational beings are persons. They don’t just have a relative value for us, but if anything they have an absolute value…an intrinsic value. That is, rational beings have dignity. They’re worthy of reverence and respect. We act in such a way, that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person, or in the person of any other never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. The slave is a means to somebody else's end. Not as an end in himself. The idea is that human beings as rational beings are Ends in themselves, not open to use merely as means to my ends.

Unlike you, I managed to get through the 8th grade.

 

So you can't figure out that no one is saying slavery is logical, but that the reason given for why slave masters treated slaves relatively well was logical?

How many times do you need to make a mockery of yourself?

 

Thanks for the laugh.

If Whites have inherently higher IQ/cognitive ability than Blacks;
and holding the above belief is racist;
then that racist belief is perfectly logical.

I cut through your listless attempt at a sophisticated argument.

Hope that helps.

Still laughing you can't figure out anything on this thread.

 

He is actually being dishonest by not presenting what this "immigration bill" does---which is amnesty for ILLEGAL immigrants. No one is against immigration, and Lindsey knows that. People who care about the security and integrity of their country will encourage legal immigration and discourage illegal immigration. So really...people for this bill could care less about the United States and doesn't give a rats ass about its security.

 

Wrong. It's really quite easy. That's why it's been dismissed. What you're offering is a ridiculous and illogical assumption. It begs the question. You don't know what that means do you? I didn't think so. It's a logical fallacy. It's a form of circular reasoning. An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion. And that would be YOU. And as you continue to promote this absurdity, you make a mockery of yourself. Happy now?

You're attempting to build a case for the treatment of slaves as being relatively humane along the same reasoning that you would as treating livestock or any other form of property like a piece of furniture as being logical, when the holding of slaves to begin with is illogical. In order to make sense out of your claim you would have to accept the idea of humans as property to make the claim valid. The conclusion you come to is embedded into a false premise. That's taking a false premise and imposing a perverted sense of logic to justify an invalid claim. It's stuffing 10 pounds of sht into a 5 pound bag and claiming that the attempt has some logic to it.

Owning another human being, and claiming that you treat him relatively well ( relative to what? a goat or a horse? That's a subjective claim to begin with. From who's perspective? The slaves or the slave owners?) and then attempting to find logic in that requires that you accept slavery as a legitimate concept to justify your conclusion. It doesn't justify itself thru logic. It does however explain the stupidity of anybody that finds the ownership of another human being as property being logically justifiable because...look how well I treat him. I own my horse and I treat him well, aside from that gelding process. I treat old Joe just as good as I treat my horse. aside from that occasional whipping. Isn't that logical?

To make it logical you would have to assume the truth of the claim that humans can be property. Whether it's true in the slave owners mind is irrelevant. Calling a human being somebody's property makes as much logical sense as calling a bike a car. Slavery is not a voluntary action. It's a coercive action forced upon another. The slave has no say in the matter. There is no logical claim to property in another person either morally or logically. We distinguish between persons on one hand, and things on the other. Rational beings are persons. To suggest that in the mind of a slave owner there is a logical justification for his holding slaves because he treats them relatively well, simply begs the question; what is logical about holding slaves? You're trying to claim logic from an illogical premise...which is the owning of slaves. Do you think you can grasp this yet or is your conservative mind still getting in the way?

So this statement...

...makes no sense since it's built on a false premise to begin with. You're trying to make logic from and illogical premise. Is it logical to keep your property in tact? Yes of course. And in the mind of the slave owner,. the slave is his property...so keeping his property in tact probably would make sense to him. The slave is worth more to him if he's healthy than if he's not. But then again, if he would put down a lame animal which is his property to do with as he chooses, it would make the same perverted logical sense to put down a slave that wasn't useful to him as well. What good is un unruly or sick animal to him? Likewise an unruly or sick slave. After all...it's just another piece of property.

 

I don't think you understand this at all. But I'll try one more time to help you. Look at the example:

Apparently when you "cut through" the explanation, like most people of your persuasion, you missed the important parts. The form above is an example of what is called Modus Ponens. IF/Then. The problem with what you posted is that you didn't finish the statement. I even spelled it out for you. But of course you "cut through" it.

If P>Q
P
therefore Q

It's called a conditional statement. IF this premise is true, THEN this conclusion is true.

P=If Whites have inherently higher IQ/cognitive ability than Blacks; and holding the above belief is racist;
Q= then that racist belief is perfectly logical.

If you get good grades then you will get into a good college.

The part after the "if": you get good grades - is called a hypotheses and the part after the "then" - you will get into a good college - is called a conclusion. Hypotheses followed by a conclusion is called an If-then statement or a conditional statement. That's what you supply here.

This is noted as
p >q
This is read - if p then q.

P is called the antecedent. Q is called the consequent.

P= If Whites have inherently higher IQ/cognitive ability than Blacks; and holding the above belief is racist;

The problem with P is that we can't say that Whites have inherently higher IQ/cognitive ability. That hasn't been demonstrated as true. But, IF it were true, it would be a demonstrable fact, then holding that belief would NOT be racist, since it wouldn't depend on any belief, but on demonstrated proof. You would hold it as true because it's been demonstrated and proven to be true. Racism is a prejudice. A bias. A "belief". There is no prejudice or bias to the truth. 2+2=4 has no bias or prejudice to it. It's not left or right. It's a fact. It doesn't care about your prejudice or bias. Regardless of your prejudice it's always going to equal 4.

So the conclusion, Q= "then racist belief is perfectly logical" is false. Racism is not perfectly justified. Certainly not by the example given.

Perhaps you should actually take the time to read. It usually helps to avoid making an ass of yourself. Hope that helps. :321:

Logic is not your weapon of choice is it?

 

I just cut through your listless writing.

You don't actually think you're articulate, do you?

Now, the simple truth is that it is perfectly logical to be racist when racism is logical.

Racism is logical since we have shown Whites and Blacks have inherently different cognitive and intellectual abilities.

 

Wow. What are you babbling about?

Too bad you can't read as well as you can mash your keyboard.

Still haven't shown where anyone has actually said slavery was logical, have you?

 

You don't actually think you have a functioning brain, do you? I'm really getting bored with having to explain the basics to you.

Except of course that racism isn't logical. It's emotional. So it's a moot point.

Wrong. You haven't shown that. Your little mind thinks you have, but all you've shown is a false assumption. So it isn't logical. It's based on emotion. Not logic. I've already demonstrated conclusively that your previous load of bile...

...is false. It fails under logic. It's a Modus Ponens conditional statement: (If/Then) If you actually knew anything about logic, you would have known that much.

You made this laughable statement, in a vainglorious attempt to present yourself is as something you aren't. namely...smart. "If Whites have inherently higher IQ/cognitive ability than Blacks; and holding the above belief is racist";. It's ludicrous because IF you could demonstrate that as true, then
1. It would not be a matter of belief. It would be a matter of fact. You don't need to believe a fact. You accept a fact. Belief always leaves room for doubt. Fact does not. and
2. It would NOT be racist, any more than establishing the fact that 2+2=4 is racist.

So your entire presentation of a Modus Ponens form is fk'd up. And then amazingly you come to this conclusion. "then racist belief is perfectly logical". Which of course is false. Racism is never logical. It's prejudice by definition, and logic has no bias to it.

Toying with right wingers that constantly try to justify their racism is always entertaining, but you've become boring now and your story is tiresome.

 

Exactly what I would expect you to say. You haven't understood a word. You have cognitive issues that you haven't dealt with.

I read and write quite well. And I can understand logical formulas which you obviously have a problem with.

Unless of course you would consider your own justification for slavery as being logical as you did in offering up your ridiculous conditional statement: "If Whites have inherently higher IQ/cognitive ability than Blacks;
and holding the above belief is racist; then that racist belief is perfectly logical." as well as this: "Now, the simple truth is that it is perfectly logical to be racist when racism is logical.". Which begs the question...When is racism ever logical? Racism is prejudice, and prejudice is an emotion. Logic isn't based on emotions. It has no bias.

Consider yourself schooled.

 

Here is the problem with Republicans in a nutshell. You pick your friends by who your friends enemies are. So you go off the deep end in support of total nut jobs. That makes all hopes for any rationality in your thinking disappear.

[video=youtube_share;r6J5ZFHI6zE]http://youtu.be/r6J5ZFHI6zE[/video]

 

I scrolled past your post.

Did you provide the quote and link where anyone in this thread justified slavery, yet?

 

You mean you're simply ignorant of cognitive differences between Blacks, Whites and East Asians on every test measuring intellectual ability conceived.

Feel free to show when/where and for which test the gap is closed for Blacks, Whites and East Asians.

In the meantime, have a good read through the following links:

http://www.politicalforum.com/race-...ognitive-iq-differences-appear-early-age.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/race-relations/348538-regression-toward-mean-race-iq.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/science/317838-race-iq-gap.html

 

You scrolled past my post....and then you quoted it directly? Interesting trick. How do you do something and not do it at the same time?

Yeah. It was you. I posted it. Must have been one of those posts that you don't actually read. You just react.

 

I'm ignoring a claim that never submitted its findings for peer-review, was formulated by 17 contributors pre-disposed to presenting those findings, and the methodology used to come up with them. You on the other hand are more than willing to accept anything that promotes your racist narrative. Oh and btw...don't post links to this forum to support your claims. I'm not interested in them. Provide links that are credible. Do let me know when you can present a well reasoned argument.

 

Did you explain how racism, which is prejudice, which is an emotional reaction, can be logical? Logic is not based on emotion? Logic has no prejudice or bias. In fact we can use logic to show that racism is NOT logical. You offered us this: "Now, the simple truth is that it is perfectly logical to be racist when racism is logical.". When exactly is racism logical? So your comment is not the "simple truth". It's false. So we can say that you promote falsehoods. Emotions don't rely on logical justifications. There is no logic to love or hate. They're emotions that function outside of logic. So...please defend your position, or give up your fools errand.