debeda

Good post, Pennylynn- and good memes

debeda

Interesting thought process.

debeda

Where did you bury him?

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

I appreciate all the fine responses we have had on this topic. I thank you.

Incidentally I have a lead on the true problem and it is not racism, discrimination, or prejudice. The problem is how we view these terms.

Political correctness defined these terms in the 80s and 90s.. The terms as defined back then was not what the terms mean.

The problem started with the declaration of Independence. Slave owners declared to the world "all men are created equal" and the solution to the problem is to free all people.

Then they created the Constitution and after the founders generation passed away, the Constitution was working. The solution in the Constitution was that states would outlaw slavery one by one until the whole country would be free and slavery would be outlawed. But what the founders did not expect is the resistance to the abolishment of slavery. But after the civil war slavery was abolished. At this point the sin of slavery died with slavery.

Then discrimination and prejudice took the place of slavery. 100 years later, the Constitution worked again, whereas prejudice and discrimination was numbered. But now we have a different problem.

For the most part of what I can see, through all of your comments, that is all of you, that the problem is not racism but the two opposing view points of the belief of Nature and Natural Law; and Progressivism. Both view points thought they could coexist.

It was the progressives that created Political Correctness. Through this thought process, one group told the other what was perfect. But how can the imperfect tell the imperfect what is perfect?

Ferrous Loc: Pacific North Coast, CA

So what are you saying??? You seem to be confused as to the topic of the debate:

The question was asked "[I assume the backlash on the reaction of the tweets appear to satisfy the 3rd, definition of the term. However, where in the above tweets does Donald Trump tell the members that based upon thier race, "Go back to your country..." ]

Trump has never just called out people for their Race... He is a multi-insulter that discriminates not on their Race but on their stupidity.

Trump is not a Racist!!!

Bigot, yes - Racist, No... Hell, most (if not all) of us are Bigots in some way or another.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Ferrous Loc: Pacific North Coast, CA

Then the Progressives are Bigots, thinking that their Way is Best. A "bigot discriminates on the basis of his personal opinion, which can include race, gender, religion or beliefs produced by their own personal life experiences"

Singularity

Didn't. Divorced his ass. Now that's his problem, along with making his own damn sandwiches.

Singularity

Strange how its always someone else, out there, who is causing ALL the problems. Nice that one is not required to self inventory or self blame. The problem with locating the problem outside of oneself is that one is then powerless to effect change.

Aggrievement is necessarily an interactive process. Like the tree falling in a forest, if no one is there to hear it, is an antisemitic trope really insulting?

It IS Semitic, correct? Root word semite? I keep hearing it pronounced as if its spelled "simetic."

"Trump has never just called out people for their Race... He is a multi-insulter that discriminates not on their Race but on their stupidity." Trump's racism is a well known historical fact, evident for decades. We should not be so worried about it, though. Nobody important seems bothered by it.

As Pennylynn said, "And I think that most white people have been called a racist at one time or another.... we hear it and it just sounds like wah wah wah!"

I have never in my life, not once, ever been called a racist. No "wah, wah, wah." Not even one "wah." Different strokes for different folks.

Singularity

Somehow that last word thingy seems very important to you, you keep mentioning it..... What's that all about? Never mind, Its good advice, but too late for now. While I was out, I made all the arrangements.

Your ride is here.

I'm "sending you back" to the shelter. You don't serve my needs as a service animal as well as I imagined you might. Poor discipline and you just don't listen. The cat hates you. And you are incontinent. Old dogs, new tricks thing.

Sorry all the "no kill" shelters are full with long waiting lists. You'll have to take your chances.

I'm not listening to more of your silly caterwalling. Not another word now. You are not MY problem any longer.

Ferrous Loc: Pacific North Coast, CA

It's obvious that Singularity doesn't understand the difference between a Racist and a Bigot...

"You state: Trump's racism is a well known historical fact, evident for decades

That statement alone breaks at least 4 Rules of Discourse

1. Special Pleading (Stacking The Deck): using the arguments that support your position, but ignoring or somehow disallowing the arguments against.

2. Burden Of Proof: the claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa). Essentially the arguer claims that he should win by default if his opponent can't make a strong enough case.

3. Argument By Dismissal: an idea is rejected without saying why.

4.Argument From Authority: the claim that the speaker is an expert, and so should be trusted.

I reject your conclusion as false and you have not presented any factual premises to back up you claim.

My conclusion is President Trump (like most of us) is a Bigot and not a Racist

again the definitions:

Racism is stating or acting upon something with the belief that your race is superior to another’s. The discrimination, hatred, or contempt is based solely upon race.

Bigotry is expressing your prejudice, hatred, dislike, or contempt toward another or a group. The bigot may not feel that his/her race is superior, but lashes out toward that person/group for other reasons.

and for Semitic... both pronunciations are acceptable

Merriam-Webster Semitic adjective
Se·​mit·​ic | \ sə-ˈmi-tik also -ˈme-

Singularity

I made the assertion that "Trump's racism is a well known historical fact, evident for decades."

As for the burden of proof, I pointed generally to historical facts, evident for decades.

"1. Special Pleading (Stacking The Deck): using the arguments that support your position, but ignoring or somehow disallowing the arguments against. "

You are not completely accurate in your description, here. Otherwise known as begging the question, Special Pleading means that an assertion is presented without required proof or is assumed without proof. Put simply, special pleading is a baseless assumption used to argue for a particular conclusion.

You are correct that I did not present the evidence in a detailed list to supplement your remembrance, rather referred generally to recent historic records. I assumed you were sentient enough to have that information as it is commonly known.

No one is "ignoring or somehow disallowing the arguments against." I am arguing that the preponderance of evidence will show conclusively, when considered fairly, that my assertion is correct and yours is not because your evidence is not accurate or pertinent.

"2. Burden Of Proof: the claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa). Essentially the arguer claims that he should win by default if his opponent can't make a strong enough case."

Wrongly twisted again, you are demonstrating the ATTEMPT AT SHIFTING the burden of proof. This principal actually simply asserts that the person making a positive claim must also supply the supporting evidence for that claim. Without evidence an assertion can logically be ignored without undue consideration.

Your "arguer," the presenter, if they made a claim and offered adequate supporting effort, will have met that burden. They would win by default if the opponent does not or can't make a strong enough counter argument to rebut or disprove the evidence presented.

The dissenting voice has the burden of rebuttal. That requires presenting arguments that invalidate the proof already presented as well as providing additional supporting evidence of the counter assertion if they choose to make a counter assertion

"3. Argument By Dismissal: an idea is rejected without saying why. "

I did say why. Historical factual examples of racist behavior. I could present a long list. I chose not to because of the audience's and your own general inexperience and disregard for such niceties.

4.Argument From Authority: the claim that the speaker is an expert, and so should be trusted.

I have not made this claim that I am aware of.

To be clear, I believe the current debate over Trumps possible racism is not complete. I don't believe he is acting primarily from racism in regards to the Squad. I agree Trump's behavior is generally bigoted, that is he frequently displays behavior that is hateful and avaricious towards targeted others with whom he fisagrees due to a belief in his ultimate personal superiority, and that he uses racism simply as one tool in a perverse arsenal to stoke division and excite his base of racist supporters.

~


What you are doing here, generally speaking, is describing the presentation of an argument and it's supporting evidence. The person who makes an assertion is to lay out the evidence for that assertion. Then, anyone who wishes to argue against it is in a position to rebut that evidence as well as present additional evidence to the contrary. That is how rational argument proceeds optimally and progresses.

debeda

LOVE that last paragraph

debeda

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

About thirty years ago I was working at a residence where the lady was loud and simple.

She wouldn't shut up and was constantly nagging at her weather beaten hubby.

My brother was mocking her and said.."I fixed you a sandwich back in 1951, now what do you want you ungrateful son of a bitch?"

She was standing on the deck up above us at the time. Quite funny!