Race Realism: Critical understandings

Author: Mesmer

Posts

Total: 320
Topic's author
#181
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Why not just skip to the inevitable conclusion and declare yourself the winner from the start ?
The audience decides the winner lol.

That's the whole point of a debate. It's about convincing the audience.

#182
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
Topic's author
#183
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL

#184
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mesmer
What no - all you've pointed out is that on the whole chimpanzees and humans are pretty similar - cool - i've already acknowledge that. by RAWLY looking at the difference between humans we can come to conclusions that are specific to HUMANS. You have not actually acknowledge my point.

And yes actually - Chimpanzes and Humans are Eukaryotes, Vertibrates, and decended from Great Apes - so yes - we are pretty similar. We are different by that remaining 4%, similarly we can do the same for humans with the remaining uniquely human genetics, you have not actually addressed my point, your being repetetive. 
Topic's author
#185
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Theweakeredge
What no - all you've pointed out is that on the whole chimpanzees and humans are pretty similar - cool - i've already acknowledge that. by RAWLY looking at the difference between humans we can come to conclusions that are specific to HUMANS. You have not actually acknowledge my point.

And yes actually - Chimpanzes and Humans are Eukaryotes, Vertibrates, and decended from Great Apes - so yes - we are pretty similar. We are different by that remaining 4%, similarly we can do the same for humans with the remaining uniquely human genetics, you have not actually addressed my point, your being repetetive. 
Again, none of this addresses the point I originally made.

I will write it again in the simplest English I can muster:

(1) You argued that human races aren't categorically valid because 'there's more difference within than between'
(2) I used that logic to show it applies to (a) chimpanzees and humans, and (b) men and women
(C) Therefore, unless you want to agree that the distinctions between (a) chimpanzees and humans, and (b) men and women aren't categorically valid, you can't use the 'more variation within than between' to say that human races aren't categorically valid

Can't make is simpler than that.
#186
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mesmer
You have LITERALLY not engaged my point AT ALL. 

On a lot of levels humans and chimpanzes ARE the same - they are eukaryotes, they are vertebrates, they are primates! There is a DISTINCT genome which is UNIQUE to humans - within that UNIQUE genome or genetic code for humans - we know that there is MORE difference between black people as a population than between white and black people.

YOU are attempting to say, "Well if the measure of difference in the genetics between two populations means that they aren't different, then your saying apes and humans aren't different!" 

INCORRECT - you are misconstruing the REASON I brought up this difference. You claim that there is a genetic difference which gives black and white people different performances in various fields, HOWEVER, the only way you could substantiate that and prove that those differences in performance aren't merely social differences would be to locate the SPECIFIC difference in genetics that Black people have from White people. HOWEVER, my point was to debunk that argument before you made it - AS if people performed differently BECAUSE of genetics, then CATEGORICALLY the two groups which are being compared HAVE to be different on that genetic level. SO the fact that the populations are actually more different against themselves means that the difference in performence CANNOT BE GENETIC. 

You have ignored, strawmanned, and continously been obtuse so as to avoid actually discussing my points. This will be my last explanation for you UNLESS you can actually adress my point in its completetion and not merely repeated yourself. Good luck. 
Topic's author
#187
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Theweakeredge
It's nothing short of astonishing that you're incapable of understanding a basic analogy. Yes, humans have a distinct genome. Yes, we're talking about humans. None of that was ever contested here because it's not relevant to the rebuttal I gave you.

But as soon as you've trotted that out, you immediately go back to the 'more variation within than between' argument that I rebutted so simply, clearly and repeatedly for you, making it painfully obvious why you can't use this argument to dismiss human races (because it leads to INSANE conclusions). It's baffling how you fail to see that the same argument you use to reject human races can be used to reject distinctions between chimpanzees and humans, as well as men and women. This isn't even a case of not understanding complex jargon or formulas. This is a BASIC analogy that I condensed into a 3 part syllogism, and you still didn't get it.

So yes, I am saying (NOT believing) chimpanzees and humans have 'more variation within than between' because it shows how STUPID your 'more variation within than between' argument is.

You've now decided to also argue the less stupid 'find the genes' argument, but due to you failing to understanding the above basic analogy on half-a-dozen attempts, I have zero faith in you to understand the more complex 'find the genes' rebuttal. So, I'm just going to say if 'find the genes' was the standard for science, you'd completely wipe out all work done in the field of biology, anthropology and all the soft sciences because it's a ridiculous, unnecessary standard. Again, if we agree with your 'find the genes' argument, we're totally unable to define things like 'bird' or 'fish' or even 'human' as we didn't 'find the genes' for absolutely everything about them -- 'find the genes' is a stupid argument.

Once again, your stupid arguments lead to ridiculous conclusions.
#188
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mesmer
Except for gender there is an alternate explanation - hormonal differences caused by a small gene set - which has been demonstrated. Can you demonstrate that black people have a similar genetic exception? No- you can't. Because if you could do that, you would have already done that, but you can't because your a racist conspiracist theoriest with no handle on logic.

You have failed to acknowledge my rebuttal - and repeated your argument again. You are an obtuse intellectually bankrupt fraud who loves to be racist without saying - you've proven to me that you don't care about intellectual honesty by refusing to actually engage with my argument, merely repeating your tired old assertion. Good bye
#189
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
If your group is voting based on fairness and principles, and you come across a group of equal size voting based on their race, at best you'll get an even playing field if you win, but a racially biased system (against you) if you lose. Eventually, you'll lose enough elections to where the race-based group has majority control and implements policies that are not fair.
So, you’re saying that if a single racial group has total control of the country for long enough; they may well construct some some sort of system that generates unequal racial outcomes that is beneficial to them, and not to other races; the racism is no longer individual, but is kinda, I don’t know... systemic?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

If only we had an example of where that happened...


Topic's author
#190
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
So, you’re saying that if a single racial group has total control of the country for long enough; they may well construct some some sort of system that generates unequal racial outcomes that is beneficial to them, and not to other races; the racism is no longer individual, but is kinda, I don’t know... systemic?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

If only we had an example of where that happened...
Yes. Systemic racism can happen.

I just argue that America isn't currently systemically racist against Black people.

Just because something can happen doesn't mean it's happening.
Topic's author
#191
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Theweakeredge
Except for gender there is an alternate explanation - hormonal differences caused by a small gene set - which has been demonstrated. Can you demonstrate that black people have a similar genetic exception? No- you can't. Because if you could do that, you would have already done that, but you can't because your a racist conspiracist theoriest with no handle on logic.

You have failed to acknowledge my rebuttal - and repeated your argument again. You are an obtuse intellectually bankrupt fraud who loves to be racist without saying - you've proven to me that you don't care about intellectual honesty by refusing to actually engage with my argument, merely repeating your tired old assertion. Good bye
Listen.

I agree that there are genetic differences between men and women, and those differences make the groups of 'men' and 'women' consistently valid at the genetic level.

All I argued initially is that when I took your logic of 'more variation within than between', we get conclusions that you seem to not agree with: men and women are genetically the same so that we can't group them separately; humans and chimpanzees are genetically the same so that we can't group them separately. If you want to drop this line of argument that's attempts to prove human races don't exist, then I'm happy to see it. Just stop defending the 'more variation within than between' argument to disprove human races because it leads to wildly wrong conclusions.

With the 'find the genes' argument ("Can you demonstrate that black people have a similar genetic exception?"), again, this isn't valid because this isn't the level of proof required to prove sub-speciation (or even speciation). People don't need to 'find the genes' to show that groups are genetically distinct. We haven't even found all the genes that differentiate ALL differences between men and women -- are they not valid groups distinct from each other? You mentioned "a small gene set" that accounts for some of the hormonal differences, but I doubt you agree that's all the difference between men and women and the genetic level.
#192
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
is not currently...
Excellent. So let’s try this one.

Imagine, for a moment, a systemically racist system over a period of more than 100 years that puts policies in place to overtly criminalize, financially and politically disadvantage, and facilitate the social decohesion of a given race.

When those overt policies are taken away; you can replace them with policies and behaviours that maintain that criminalization, financially and politicial disadvantage, and the social de-cohesion; - identical effects on those races - and simply blame it on non race related things

Have you caused the loss of generational wealth in a race, tied schools to the local area, precipitated white flight? Well, the cycle of poverty will keep that going?

Did you over police black neighbourhoods because you criminalize being black, and overtly criminalize drugs used by African Americans over those used by whites, and used it to precipitate a period of mass incarceration; that damaged the generational social fabric? Well now you don’t have to pretend that blacks are dangerous criminals; the poverty, lack of schools and break down of the social fabric of many cities - that one will keep taking care of itself too.

I mean: if you overpolice where there is most crime, arrest innocent people in that area that fit a description, or fit a criminal profile, or police them in a way that is more likely to lead to a detection of a crime , force them to plea bargain because they’re poor; send them to prison, give them tough parole conditions that makes it hard to hold down regular inflexible jobs they could find as an ex-con once they leave; then throw the book at them if they then turn to crime, or violate parole; breaking up families, leading to social de-cohesion that then increases poor behaviour at school, and can increase criminality - you only have to do it for so long before you can say you’re only criminalizing them because they’re criminals - ignoring that the criminality is in part historically because they have been criminalized...


This argument is really a variation of “piss on my head and tell me it’s raining”: Perpetuating the outcome of overtly racist policies, by creating policies that punishing what those policies created in various communities - in a way that maintains those very same problems.
Topic's author
#193
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
Imagine
This is where you should have stopped and realized that you're not about to talk about reality.

I'm sure you'd like to take me into your funhouse wherein you wax poetic and spin narratives about your feelings and African Americans making frowny faces. But I'm not interested nor will anyone of intellectual honesty and merit be convinced by your "imagine" speech.

I deal with data-driven and research based arguments that show/disprove that systemic racism exists. I've looked at 100s and concluded that systemic racism doesn't exist. That's where I'm at. 

So, if you actually have arguments based in reality showing that systemic racism exists in America, like in criminal justice or schooling, I'll argue that line-by-line. If you're just going to request that I "imagine" things, don't bother.
#194
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
You have LITERALLY not engaged my point AT ALL. 

On a lot of levels humans and chimpanzes ARE the same - they are eukaryotes, they are vertebrates, they are primates! There is a DISTINCT genome which is UNIQUE to humans - within that UNIQUE genome or genetic code for humans - we know that there is MORE difference between black people as a population than between white and black people.

YOU are attempting to say, "Well if the measure of difference in the genetics between two populations means that they aren't different, then your saying apes and humans aren't different!" 

INCORRECT - you are misconstruing the REASON I brought up this difference. You claim that there is a genetic difference which gives black and white people different performances in various fields, HOWEVER, the only way you could substantiate that and prove that those differences in performance aren't merely social differences would be to locate the SPECIFIC difference in genetics that Black people have from White people. HOWEVER, my point was to debunk that argument before you made it - AS if people performed differently BECAUSE of genetics, then CATEGORICALLY the two groups which are being compared HAVE to be different on that genetic level. SO the fact that the populations are actually more different against themselves means that the difference in performence CANNOT BE GENETIC. 

You have ignored, strawmanned, and continously been obtuse so as to avoid actually discussing my points. This will be my last explanation for you UNLESS you can actually adress my point in its completetion and not merely repeated yourself. Good luck. 
Well stated.
#195
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
This is where you should have stopped and realized that you're not about to talk about reality.
What I was talking about is actually what happened in reality: I’m explaining how overtly  racist laws can produce inequality that can be maintained with a fig leaf of non-racial justification.

I was simply employing a rhetorical device in its delivery.

I think you know this however, and your objection was simply a red herring in order to dismiss an argument you didn’t like.
#196
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Ramshutu
Have you caused the loss of generational wealth in a race, tied schools to the local area, precipitated white flight? Well, the cycle of poverty will keep that going?
Do you have statistics on how much of the wealth of the median white household dates back to the Jim Crow era or before? My impression from researching inherited wealth is that the answer is very little. 

White flight occurred because of a long term rise in violent crime concentrated in urban areas beginning in the 1960s and continuing until the mid 1990s. I don’t know what you mean by “tied schools to a local area.” The laws implemented in the 1960s and continuing into the 1980s did the exact opposite of this, and forcibly integrated schools even when it meant busing in people from far away. The results were catastrophic, with gigantic rises in bullying and the complete destruction of many school districts. Here’s a good history on that: https://devinhelton.com/busing-in-boston

Did you over police black neighbourhoods because you criminalize being black, and overtly criminalize drugs used by African Americans over those used by whites, and used it to precipitate a period of mass incarceration; that damaged the generational social fabric?
We know that over policing doesn’t cause the majority of the differences in black/white arrest rates because we can compare arrest rates for violent crimes with the national crime victimization survey, which interviews victims of violent crimes about the characteristics of the assailants, and we find that the arrest rates and reported offender rates are very similar. There probably IS some truth to the fact that a larger police presence means a certain level of mischief that would go undetected in a safer area results in arrests or a police encounter, but this is just a consequence of the area being ridden with crime. 81% of black people want the police presence in their neighborhoods to stay the same or increase: https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx

It simply is not credible to argue that having more police in areas that have more crime, a policy that is supported by the people living in those areas who want to be protected from violent criminals, is a systemically racist policy. 

…, or police them in a way that is more likely to lead to a detection of a crime , force them to plea bargain because they’re poor; send them to prison, give them tough parole conditions that makes it hard to hold down regular inflexible jobs they could find as an ex-con once they leave; then throw the book at them if they then turn to crime, or violate parole; breaking up families, leading to social de-cohesion that then increases poor behaviour at school…
The US criminal justice system needs reform, no doubt. I’m also bothered by the fact that life for ex cons, who supposedly have fulfilled their debt to society, is made so incredibly difficult. But flawed though the justice system may be, the people involved with it are not there because we have criminalized “being black.” They are there because they chose to commit crimes. If they chose not to commit crimes, they would not be there. Punishing a criminal is not an example of systemic racism. A shitty system is not an example of systemic racism. We would be in agreement that a system that prioritizes rehabilitation and post offense life would be superior for society. But that doesn’t mean the system we do have is “systemically racist” just because it’s garbage in a lot of ways. 
Topic's author
#197
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
Imagine
This is where you should have stopped and realized that you're not about to talk about reality.
What I was talking about is actually what happened in reality: I’m explaining how overtly  racist laws can produce inequality that can be maintained with a fig leaf of non-racial justification.

I was simply employing a rhetorical device in its delivery.

I think you know this however, and your objection was simply a red herring in order to dismiss an argument you didn’t like.
Your "imagine" rhetorical device doesn't prove anything.

Demonstrate using data, facts and research that systemic racism is real.

If you can't do that (you haven't so far), you have no logical argument.
#198
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
White flight occurred because of a long term rise in violent crime concentrated in urban areas beginning in the 1960s...

In fact the largest decline among ALL Black households occurred right after the slew of 1965 Democrat policies destroyed the Black family per the Moynihan report, keeping crime rates high. It might not have been intended, but Democrats are historically notorious for shifting blame instead of cleaning house.
#199
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
Your "imagine" rhetorical device doesn't prove anything.
Well no: the argument but after does he work to set up my point; so far you’ve been kinda trying to avoid it.

Demonstrate using data, facts and research that systemic racism is real.

If you can't do that (you haven't so far), you have no logical argument.
No no no. Right now - my intent isn’t to prove systemic racism exists - that would be you moving the goal posts.

As I’m debating a white supremacist with extreme views - we have to start at a point of common understanding and agreement: and from there we can build up.

Everyone has their own strategies for how to defend their beliefs from direct attacks; so you have to start at the bottom and work up.


So we’ve got to the point where you acknowledge that one race being in a position of economic, political and social dominance can and do pass laws that can be systemically racist.

I don’t think you would object to the statement that the US was definitely there in the past, right? I mean segregation, extrajudicial lynchings is pretty explicit, right?


From there, I’m setting up the premise here, that a group of explicitly racist laws that makes one race poorer, and creates a cycle of poverty and crime; can be replaced with non overtly racist laws that maintain that racial inequality by propagating that cycle of poverty and crime.

That’s the bit you’re stuck on right now.


I would like to hear what your reply is, because thus far you seem to be doing your best to try not having a discussion by evading the argument presented.
 


#200
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
we have to start at a point of common understanding and agreement: and from there we can build up.
Well stated.
Topic's author
#201
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
Your "imagine" rhetorical device doesn't prove anything.
Well no: the argument but after does he work to set up my point; so far you’ve been kinda trying to avoid it.
I'm avoiding a discussion about things that don't exist.

Again, cite data, research or studies. Not interested in anything else.

No no no. Right now - my intent isn’t to prove systemic racism exists - that would be you moving the goal posts.
That should be the goal because that was where the original disagreement was. You're the one attempting to move the goal posts to something far murkier and frankly not worth discussing (hypotheticals).

If you're no longer going to prove that (probably because you can't), then you have no argument worth listening to and have conceded what you originally pushed back against.

As I’m debating a white supremacist with extreme views
No lol.

You're just a slanderous anti-white shitlib intent on talking about hypotheticals rather than reality.


Everyone has their own strategies for how to defend their beliefs from direct attacks
Yeah and your "imagine" arguments even concede the fact they're not based on reality.

I'm not going to keep saying that you need to start citing data, research or studies to back your claims. If you keep with this "imagine" garbage, then you've effectively conceded that you don't have worthwhile arguments.

Up to you.
#202
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
To start with, you’re simply avoiding a discussion when the point, the logic and argument are not in a position where you feel comfortable to defend.


I am talking about real things, real scenarios, real situations in a given context.

The purpose of this, is to generate agreement of how things are, but to determine whether some specific chain of events, or collections of behaviours if specifically targeted can cause a particular thing to happen.


That’s not an esoteric, unreasonable or unfair argument strategy, but the premise of constructing a working hypothesis.

How am I to convince you that the facts support a given hypothesis without first getting you to accept the logical validity of the hypothesis?


Start at the bottom and work up.

People with extreme views who don’t wish to be challenged develop strategies of attacking facts directly: without a framework one can agree on - those sorts of conversations cannot go anywhere.

Given that, and giving you the benefit of the doubt that this is not your intent: I will well reiterate my request to review my hypothesis, and answer my question.
 
No lol.

You're just a slanderous anti-white shitlib intent on talking about hypotheticals rather than reality.

I am very willing to talk about reality: but we must first agree on shared common reality - which you can do via hypotheticals.


Secondly. : Correct me if I’m wrong - but on this website, almost all your posts present are aligned with a single position - including this one - that the reasons there are such significant inequality between races; is down to racial differences; and the inequality in outcomes is down to inherent racial inferiority; not systemic problems that cause racial inequality. 

You have been arguing that systemic racism doesn’t exist. Race is real, and is responsible for much of that inequality as opposed to the system people live in causing racial inequality.

Believing the social and economic inequality of one race is justified, because whites have an inherent racial advantage - effectively that they are superior - is almost the exact definition of white supremacy. That definition is not changed by and is not predicated on whether someone thinks that position is justified or not.


Unless I have completely misunderstood your position - which I really don’t believe I have - calling you a white supremacist is not slanderous, but specifically describing your beliefs ; whether or not you like it.

It’s an accurate label, and no more unreasonable than you calling me a liberal, atheist, or British. That’s what I am and that is, again unless I have completely misunderstood everything you’ve said thus far, what you are.


All that remains is whether that position is defensible. And it seems that you’re unwilling to accept any specific challenge to your views that don’t fall into a specific subset that you are comfortable with.

That’s fine: not everyone wants to stray from their comfort zone: but I am very much going to press you to defending that position at every opportunity.
Topic's author
#203
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
You still haven't provided any data, studies or research to support your claims. I don't care about what you "imagine" to be the case or whatever hypothetical "working hypothesis" you want to pivot to in order to avoid posting data, studies or research about systemic racism. You are clearly not interested in discussing anything substantial that is based on reality.

I don't care if you incorrectly think I'm a "white supremacist" and I don't care about discussing that at length. I don't care if you incorrectly think I'm "uncomfortable" with whatever and I don't care about discussing that at length. This Ad Hominem against me is wasting everyone's time -- none of this is relevant to systemic racism in any way.

You've effectively conceded the discussion.
#204
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
I’m attempting to engage in an argument with you, by starting off with a base hypothesis from which we can then build on a set of agreed principles.

I have explained in detail why I want to start this way, what my intent is; and how it is relevant. I’ve also explained why that approach is valid and why it is necessary.

If you wish to not engage in an argument or discussion - don’t pin the blame on me for not wanting to jump into throwing data without having firmly established a framework we both agree on.

It’s too easy to get nowhere.

Like I said; if your intent is to have an argument - I am offering you one - it’s just not the one you want, at a level you are comfortable with.


Likewise; you keep using the phrase Ad Hom. I would suggest you look up what it means, as none of the specific cases you have asserted were Ad Homs are; in fact attacking arguments as Ad Homs as way of dismissing them very much is.

Finally: If your intent is to reject without question a point I made, this is again your prerogative, but it is not an argument - but rhetoric.

White Supremacy is the belief that the white Race is superior to others, and their position of dominance over others is justified.

Your arguments firmly indicate that your position that the white race has some inherent superiority over others - by stating that the reasons that another race is disadvantaged is inherent in their race, and thus their position of dominance is justified.

By all means show me how I’m wrong:

- Do you believe that African Americans - as a racial group - have various traits specific to their race that account for all, of most the inequality we see in society?
- Do you Believe that the white race does not suffer from these same racial traits?
- Do you believe, then, that socioenomic inequality is therefore justified and not something that must be corrected?

If the answer to the above are all yes - which I believe they are; then the label “white supremacist” is valid.

Please tell me which of those points you disagree with?
Topic's author
#205
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
You are not building your arguments correctly.

Nobody but you cares about the 'principles we agree on', your "imagine" speeches or whether I'm a 'white supremacist' or not. These are objectively irrelevant and a waste of time in regards to systemic racism.

State your argument involving systemic racism, defend it with data/research/studies, and we'll go from there. That is how arguments are formed. Your Ad Hominem and red herring pivots are not worth engaging.
#206
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
You are not building your arguments correctly.
On what basis have you concluded this? I have outlined exactly what my approach is. In what respect is it unreasonable, why is it unlikely to yield a valid answer.

Thus far I have offered up a pretty detailed justification for why what I said is valid and has value.

You do not seem to be doing anything more than simply telling me I’m wrong.

I am open to correction, if you think my way is wrong, please explain why and how. 


Nobody but you cares about the 'principles we agree on', your "imagine" speeches or whether I'm a 'white supremacist' or not. These are objectively irrelevant and a waste of time in regards to systemic racism.
Actually - you should. In order to have a discussion one must agree on basic sets of facts and conditions, certain approaches of logic and in arguments like this, whether certain processes, effects, events, and conditions are valid.

In fact - it’s a central principle that we have to broadly agree on whether a hypothesis is valid before we can debate its evidence, no?

So indeed: EVERYONE who wants to engage in logical debate necessarily cares about the principles involved.

State your argument involving systemic racism, defend it with data/research/studies, and we'll go from there. That is how arguments are formed. Your Ad Hominem and red herring pivots are not worth engaging.
Firstly, at each stage I have justified my position; offered explanation and reasoning - only for you to loudly shout about how wrong I am.

Secondly - I have stated my argument - you are ignoring it.

This argument states particular real world conditions, and events that could create systemic Inequality with overtly racist laws for which can be replaced with non-racist laws to maintain that inequality.


If we can’t agree that it’s even theoretically possible, and can’t discuss how and what those processes may be, what they look like, and how significant they would need to be - how on earth can you be expected to process evidence that they exist?

Indeed, despite your denial, and assertions to the contrary; starting off by stating the hypothesis, figuring out its logic, processes etc, to determine how to falsify or validate it - there is no real basis or framework upon which both sides can agree upon the validity of the evidence.


Simply regurgitating the same demand to “show the evidence”; without agreement on a framework, a working hypothesis, is not a valid way of having an intelligent discussion; because there is simply too much to be challenged and defend. 

Ground up breaks it down to a peace meal set of agreements, that allow a minimum set of evidence to be agreed, and a simple determination of whether it has been met to be found.

That’s why it is necessary; and the only reason one would object to it - was if you were not interested in a valid argument, but are relying on the vast breadth of the topic making it impossible to fully argue without derailing the thread.


Finally; I’m addressing all of your assertions. You have not really been making arguments, which require you to justify a position - but are simply stating what you think is true.

As a result; I don’t believe there is any argument for me to construct a red herring, Ad Hom, or pivot from.

Indeed, in assessing all your criticisms head on, in context without any omission or dismissal. That’s a valid argument.

You may object to my labelling you as a white supremacist - I have explained why, provided a justification of why it’s a valid assessment of your position; and is no more an Ad Hom, or Red Herring as is your use of “shitlib” in various threads 

In my last reply, I have even gone so far as to offer you a very easy set of questions that would allow you to completely shut down my label - all you need to do is tell me which one of those questions you would answer no to.


Given that you object to me calling you a White Supremacist, and that you think it’s Incorrect - it would stand to reason that any normal person would happily say “no” to one of those questions, no?

That’s what an argument is - rather than simply throw out accusations, one must show that the accusation is true. I have done exactly that with my label; and feel it completely valid in a thread where you have repeatedly labelled people “shitlibs”



Topic's author
#207
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
Just tell me why you think systemic racism exists, and use some data/research/studies to back up that claim.

You haven't done that yet.

That's literally all you have to do.
#208
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
I have given a pretty detailed set of reasons why doing that is not actually that simple, why and how it’s unlikely to lead to a productive discussion, and how it’s unlikely to lead to any valid points or acceptance of anything.

Thus far you have been unable to offer any reasons as to why what I’m suggesting is unfair, unreasonable or invalid.

It appears given this that you have conceded the argument that what I’m suggesting is the best approach, and yours is not - but are still demanding to do the way you want. 

If you’re not able to justify why I should argue the way you want, why should I?


In addition, you appear to have dropped all your other objections. 

Am I right in assuming that you are conceding that my labelling is not an Ad-Hom, and is accurate?

I will assuming that given that you cannot simply chose which one of the three options I gave you is a “no” after having been pressed twice, my statements are correct and you’re conceding that what you’re advocating is white supremacy. 

If you wish to object, instead of protestation, please refer back to one of the three questions and explain which you would answer no to.


Topic's author
#209
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
If you're an independent reader watching this, this is largely a lesson in choosing the right arguments to make.

Proving that something is theoretically possible doesn't prove that something exists.

Proving that something exists is the way to go. You do that by making an argument to show that something exists, and then using data/research/studies to back up that argument.

That's the way to go.

Don't get baited into talking about theoretical possibilities, Ad Hominem/Appeal to Authority or other irrelevant pivots. If an argument backed by data/research/studies isn't provided, then they have no logical argument to make their case. You should reject their arguments on that basis. That's all you need to consider. That's all you need to eventually end up with a good argument to believe in. Give the middle finger to sophistry every time.
Topic's author
#210
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
You've failed to construct a worthwhile argument to support your position.

There is nothing more to discuss.

Off you go.