I have offered a starting point argument...
A "starting point" argument. Lol.
Race Realism: Critical understandings
Posts
Total:
320
-->
@ethang5
I have offered a starting point argument...A "starting point" argument. Lol.
Yeah I know lol.
He's trying to argue that a "starting point" is an entire argument, and when I pointed out he should just make the entire argument, he's refused to do so.
This is literally what this 30+ chain of posts has been about.
-->
@Ramshutu
Build the entire case or leave.
Your choice.
-->
@Mesmer
Build the entire case or leave.
Absolutely.
Let’s start by building up a common set of assumptions that we can work up from because your approach is not capable of generating a valid discussion due to all the reasons I just said.
Does this mean that you will stop refusing to engage in a discussion?
-->
@Ramshutu
Ram is a debate board alum. Their focus is to win debates, not win arguments by sound logic. So they will try to bog you down with semantics and defining your argument for you, and then insist that their definition is your argument.
He cares nothing about the rationality of the arguments, his eye is on the "voters" who will "hand" him a win with their clique votes. He's not in formal debate, but he's unable to come out of DDO's shifty debate mode.
If you beat him bad enough, one of his clique will chime in with a post that serves as a "vote" against you and for him. And both of them will claim you are wrong, and he's won.
-->
@ethang5
Ram is a debate board alum. Their focus is to win debates, not win arguments by sound logic. So they will try to bog you down with semantics and defining your argument for you, and then insist that their definition is your argument.He cares nothing about the rationality of the arguments, his eye is on the "voters" who will "hand" him a win with their clique votes. He's not in formal debate, but he's unable to come out of DDO's shifty debate mode.
This is believable.
These people are part of the reason I don't bother with debates anymore; it lends itself to this kind of sophistry. But with unlimited post+characters I can get to the real bottom of things so that Ramshutu's sophistry doesn't work.
If you beat him bad enough, one of his clique will chime in with a post that serves as a "vote" against you and for him. And both of them will claim you are wrong, and he's won.
This won't be a problem for me because I can avoid debates. altogether.
Forums are where sophistry comes to die.
-->
@Ramshutu
Let’s start by building up a common set of assumptions that we can work up from
No.
Make your entire case or leave.
because your approach is not capable of generating a valid discussion due to all the reasons I just said.
Wrong.
I'm not going to discuss this, either. We're not going into your sophistry funhouse wherein you and I have a debate about a potential debate. I have better things to do with my time.
You will make your entire case to prove that systemic racism exists or you will leave.
Forums are where sophistry comes to die.
😂😂😂😂😂
Both of you do it, he just does it in a different style.
What you do is dodge and demonise the opponent's way of attacking you, what Ramshutu does is focus hard on anything he can use to make the opponent seem weak in basis.
In the end you're both gaslighting each other and never ever going to stop the other's sophistry as your styles compliment the other so well when clashing.
What you do is dodge and demonise the opponent's way of attacking you
That's because it's Ad Hominem, you silly twit.
I don't want to discuss endlessly whether I'm not I certain slur, ESPECIALLY in place of discussing an argument.
I want to discuss arguments and whether they are correct or not.
So when I'm discussing trashumanism or race realism, and you try your best to sledgehammer in your 'white supremacist' or 'fascist' Ad Hominems against me, don't get your panties in a bunch when you get called out on Ad Hominem and I intentionally avoid it.
-->
@Mesmer
Objective correctness is always a subjective opinion.
And known facts are such that they rarely need qualification anyway.
And philosophy, religion and to a greater extent sociology are disciplines that rely upon subjective output....That is why they are perpetually argued without resolution.
And a "substantial argument" is such that it validates itself.
Within a FORUM discussion I rarely see any need to substantiate my subjectivity with another persons subjectivity.
-->
@Mesmer
No.Make your entire case or leave.
You are Denying my ability to establish a common set of assumptions refusing to let me make my entire case.
False, Assertion(43)
Argument by repetition (44)
Asserting over and over again that what I’m attempting is invalid - when I have Spelled out in detail exactly why isn’t, is not a valid argument.
You’re being both disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
Wrong.
False, assertion (45): if all you are able to argue is vehement protestations that I’m wrong - without any explanation - then you will be clearly unable to process a full, unabridged first principles argument.
Explain yourself; provide an argument.
I'm not going to discuss this, either. We're not going into your sophistry funhouse wherein you and I have a debate about a potential debate. I have better things to do with my time.
False, ad Hom (46): calling names is not an argument
False, hypocrisy (47): I’ve demonstrated in the posts above, that you’re inability to argue and demands allow you to argue dishonestly and prevent rational discussion. You have no response.
False, assertion (48): hurling accusations without any justification, is not a sensible argument approach
False, repetition (49) : you’re just repeating the same false arguments again and again.
False, lie (50): what better way to get your half century of bad Arguments than a lie! You clearly, absolutely, definitively have nothing better to do with your time given that you’re continually replying with invalid arguments and repetition.
You will make your entire case to prove that systemic racism exists or you will leave.
I am trying - you are refusing to engage with me making that case.
Like I said, the starting point has to be a hypothesis.
Why are things the way they are; what aspects of the past can be or are effecting the present. The US looked very different 80 years ago - how have the policies of the past impacted the current social fabric today.
With the hypothesis outlined - you can hammer out whether the premises and logic of the hypothesis are valid.
No point me searching up a billion data points if you don’t agree with my logic, or premise, right? or if you don’t contest a particular event or condition I’m talking about, no?
From there, we can determine what data points are necessary; all without adding up so many points discussion is impossible.
On the other hand; you omitted to mention your underlying hypothesis (which is white supremacy as I proved - which is why calling you a white supremacist is critical to understanding the underlying argument you’re making. You haven’t defined what you mean by systemic racism, and you have limited your discussion to only one broad aspect of the larger picture.
The issue is that arguing too down, you have built up a framework of total ambiguity in which your underlying assumptions or terms are not specified ; demanding I launch a huge top to bottom argument with a thousand individual points.
Your actions start you off at a point where even in good faith, an argument is near impossible.
However; you refuse to clarify anything, you’re not offering anything more than assertion and repetition, and have not really provided any contradictory rebuttals to anything I’ve said.
We’re I to offer a complete argument; given your current demonstrated behaviour of ignoring anything you don’t like; shouting , name calling, assertion, repetition, straw men, and flat out rejecting arguments on perceived technicalities - on what basis do you expect me to believe that you won’t also act so comprehensively disingenuous if I provide a full argument? Especially one that is so easy to argue if one were being disingenuous.
Your behaviour is clearly dishonest - not providing arguments, comprehensively disingenuous responses; hiding behind ambiguity, hand waving away entire arguments you don’t like.
If you were here in good faith; you’d be taking me up in my offer, and actually arguing at a deep level the causes of the inequalities we see.
The only valid conclusion is that you’re doing any of this in good faith; hence why I am trying to herd you into arguing in a way that will not allow you to be disingenuous.
You obviously realize this, and are terrified of engaging in an argument Structured in a way that does not allow you to be disingenuous.
-->
@Ramshutu
Make your entire case or leave.
Up to you.
-->
@Mesmer
Like I said, the starting point has to be a hypothesis.
Why are things the way they are; what aspects of the past can be or are effecting the present. The US looked very different 80 years ago - how have the policies of the past impacted the current social fabric today.
With the hypothesis outlined - you can hammer out whether the premises and logic of the hypothesis are valid.
No point me searching up a billion data points if you don’t agree with my logic, or premise, right? or if you don’t contest a particular event or condition I’m talking about, no?
From there, we can determine what data points are necessary; all without adding up so many points discussion is impossible.
On the other hand; you omitted to mention your underlying hypothesis (which is white supremacy as I proved - which is why calling you a white supremacist is critical to understanding the underlying argument you’re making. You haven’t defined what you mean by systemic racism, and you have limited your discussion to only one broad aspect of the larger picture.
The issue is that arguing too down, you have built up a framework of total ambiguity in which your underlying assumptions or terms are not specified ; demanding I launch a huge top to bottom argument with a thousand individual points.
Your actions start you off at a point where even in good faith, an argument is near impossible.
However; you refuse to clarify anything, you’re not offering anything more than assertion and repetition, and have not really provided any contradictory rebuttals to anything I’ve said.
We’re I to offer a complete argument; given your current demonstrated behaviour of ignoring anything you don’t like; shouting , name calling, assertion, repetition, straw men, and flat out rejecting arguments on perceived technicalities - on what basis do you expect me to believe that you won’t also act so comprehensively disingenuous if I provide a full argument? Especially one that is so easy to argue if one were being disingenuous.
Your behaviour is clearly dishonest - not providing arguments, comprehensively disingenuous responses; hiding behind ambiguity, hand waving away entire arguments you don’t like.
If you were here in good faith; you’d be taking me up in my offer, and actually arguing at a deep level the causes of the inequalities we see.
The only valid conclusion is that you’re doing any of this in good faith; hence why I am trying to herd you into arguing in a way that will not allow you to be disingenuous.
You obviously realize this, and are terrified of engaging in an argument Structured in a way that does not allow you to be disingenuous.
-->
@Ramshutu
You've spent well over a dozen posts and thousands of words not providing any evidence for the existence of systemic racism, but instead used all of space and effort to explain why you shouldn't.
Lol.
-->
@Mesmer
You've spent well over a dozen posts and thousands of words not providing any evidence for the existence of systemic racism, but instead used all of space and effort to explain why you shouldn't.
False, assertion (51): hurling accusations without any justification, is not a sensible argument approach
False, repetition (52) : you’re just repeating the same false arguments again and again.
False, lie (53): I have been spending these thousands of words dedicated to trying to get you to not ignore the argument.
I presented a starting point for us to work up from - to allow honest engagement, repeatedly justified that stating point - you in response you have lied, misrepresented, name called, asserted, straw-manned, ignored everything said, and have engaged in what can only be described as systematic intellectual dishonesty; and profound bad faith.
If you put this much effort, time and energy into arguing so dishonestly about a single, logical question that forms the starting point for an Enquirey - I shudder to think the lengths to which you will go if I present 100.
You’re clearly here in bad faith; and your inability to argue, and continued dishonesty just makes it more necessary that we start at the beginning. Once more :
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? Will 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. Right?
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...
Which aspect of this hypothesis do you find illogical, and why?
-->
@Ramshutu
I presented a starting point for us to work up from - to allow honest engagement, repeatedly justified that stating point - you in response you have lied, misrepresented, name called, asserted, straw-manned, ignored everything said, and have engaged in what can only be described as systematic intellectual dishonesty; and profound bad faith.If you put this much effort, time and energy into arguing so dishonestly about a single, logical question that forms the starting point for an Enquirey - I shudder to think the lengths to which you will go if I present 100.You’re clearly here in bad faith; and your inability to argue, and continued dishonesty just makes it more necessary that we start at the beginning.
No.
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
No imagining.
Construct your case or leave.
Have you caused the loss of generational wealth in a race, tied schools to the local area, precipitated white flight? Will the cycle of poverty will keep that going?
Demonstrate that this has happened or no one has a reason to believe what you say.
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. Right?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...
I have already demonstrated that Blacks commit more real crime and get arrested at the rate you'd expect from their higher criminality rates; there is no systemic racism in criminal justice: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) .
Meanwhile, you have provided zero counter-argument and zero argument of your own. Thus, base on what has been presented in this thread, people should agree with me because I'm the only one to have provided an argument that systemic racism doesn't exist in criminal justice.
That's why a lot of your arguments have "imagine" and "hypothetically" -- you don't actually have anything to prove systemic racism exists.
Show that systemic racism exists or leave.
-->
@Mesmer
No.
False, assertion (51): You seem Unable to offer an argument.
No imagining.Construct your case or leaves
False, misrepresentation (52): I am constructing my case - you’re ignoring it: and ignoring all arguments explaining that it is disingenuous to ignore it. Hence why you’re clearly arguing in bad faith: 52 false/misleading/fallacious statements is pretty telling.
Demonstrate that this has happened or no one has a reason to believe what you say.
False, misrepresentation (53): I am constructing the logical part of an argument. You are aware how arguments are constructed right? Take a look in my previous posts.
I’m asking you which claims you think am would agree are possible, if there are specific parts of the hypothesis you agree are logically valid (not necessarily true) so that we can start off from a position of common agreement.
I have already demonstrated that Blacks commit more real crime and get arrested at the rate you'd expect from their higher criminality rates; there is no systemic racism in criminal justice: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com)
False, misrepresentation (54): As explained, to draw the conclusions you do, you have a broad set of assumptions that you do not explain using a hypothesis you will not share. I’ve pointed out that your hypothesis appears to be based on white supremacy so I can divide our our assumptions for the argument; but instead of arguing with me - you’re resorting to name calling, misrepresentation and assertions.
What you’re demanding enables you to argue disingenuously by sniping from behind these hidden assumptions - and as you’ve gone nearly 100 posts without offering a counter argument to anything I’ve said - offering only the same assertions, repetition, foot stamping, and misrepresentation- there is every reason to believe you’ll keep up that pattern of intellectual dishonesty.
Hence why I am attempting to build up from a common base - and I suspect why you’re refusing to argue - a common base minimizes areas of disagreement and minimizes contested assumptions - giving you less things to argue at a time; but starts of as a logical argument.
Meanwhile, you have provided zero counter-argument and zero argument of your own. Thus, base on what has been presented in this thread, people should agree with me because I'm the only one to have provided an argument that systemic racism doesn't exist in criminal justice.
False, lie (55): At this point - this is simply a lie. Ignoring everything I’m saying doesn’t make it more valid.
I’m trying to build up my argument - you’re refusing to listen to it.
I haven’t got to the point where I have built a systematic case from the ground up, because you have spent 100 posts telling me that I am not allowed to do so.
That's why a lot of your arguments have "imagine" and "hypothetically" -- you don't actually have anything to prove systemic racism exists.
False, lie (56): the hypothetical argument is how you start building a argument. You’re demanding that I build an argument; and then reject the argument I start building, because it’s not finished yet. This is intellectually dishonest.
Show that systemic racism exists or leave.
This is exactly what I’m doing - you’re just spending 100 posts screaming at me to build an argument because I started building an argument.
The appropriate, intellectually honest approach would be to review my hypothesis, and determine which aspects of it you think are not possible or conceptually valid.
That agreement helps us limit the areas of contention and limits the aspects I have to defend (because they’re agreed).
Hell, a deductive argument is a collection of premises - some logic that leads to the conclusion. If you don’t contest the logic, and don’t contest the premises - then you must accept the conclusion: providing data is only necessary for the premises you contest. I don’t even know what those are yet - because you refuse to engage in a reasonable coherent logical discussion about it.
Hence why I’m calling you intellectually dishonest: Your demanding evidence of my conclusion; whilst refusing to listen to my logic, my initial premises, or any of the premises I have arrived at on the way.
-->
@Ramshutu
You currently have not provided an argument that shows systemic racism exists.
Stop "building" your argument and get it done already.
Show that systemic racism exists or leave.
-->
@Mesmer
You currently have not provided an argument that shows systemic racism exists.Stop "building" your argument and get it done already.Show that systemic racism exists or leave.
False, lie (57): As stated : I am attempting to build my argument - you are refusing to engage with the argument on the basis it is not yet fully complete. You’re demanding that I must not engage in structured discussion to demonstrate my conclusion is true whilst concurrently demanding that I provide a demonstration that my conclusion is true.
You’re foot stamping is intellectually Dishonest, inherently disingenuous and demonstrative that you do not want to engage in good faith.
Thus far you have failed to defend this position; with. strategy of defense to simply repeat yourself in the face of criticism.
False, argument from repetition (58): your not defending your claims - you are just repeating them.
-->
@zedvictor4
If for example, one is simply exchanging philosophical, political or religious opinion, then sources tend to be nothing more than arbitrary and secondary opinion
Great point.
Just because someone wrote something in a book, doesn't magically make it REAL-TRUE-FACT.
BOTH SIDES still need to rigorously define their terms AND build a case out of SOUND LOGIC.
-->
@Ramshutu
You’re foot stamping is intellectually Dishonest, inherently disingenuous and demonstrative that you do not want to engage in good faith.
I'm not convinced they're being "disingenuous".
Try focusing on definitions.
Definitions are PRIORITY ONE.
What you do is dodge and demonise the opponent's way of attacking youThat's because it's Ad Hominem, you silly twit.
...
you try your best to sledgehammer in your 'white supremacist' or 'fascist' Ad Hominems against me, don't get your panties in a bunch when you get called out on Ad Hominem and I intentionally avoid it.
I cannot find many better examples of 'case in point' with the direct reply someone gives to an accurate callout of their methods.
You’re foot stamping is
: your not defending
you have the your-vs-you're dynamic reversed
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not convinced they're being "disingenuous".Try focusing on definitions.Definitions are PRIORITY ONE.
The disingenuousness is actually coming from.
- Refusing to support his accusations or demands.
- Continually misrepresenting what’s happening; despite being corrected multiple times
- Refusing to provide a counter argument to issues raised; and simply restating his claims.
Indeed, I’ve pointed out that he’s stubbornly demanding that I provide him a case; when I start setting out my case - he refuses to listen. He’s objecting to me providing an argument - then refusing to acknowledge the reason the approach is necessary.
In normal cases, I think definitions are a number one priority - but not so much in cases like this; because of the other persons position. Establishing what is actually happening, or likely happening is way more important than what we decide to call it; showing that a big aspect of the disparities we see have their roots in historical racism, and maintained by ongoing social policy - rather than by something inherent in race is the fundamental aim; if their only argument is haggling over whether that meets the definition of systemic racism - they’ve already lost. So may as well leave that to the end.
-->
@Ramshutu
In normal cases, I think definitions are a number one priority - but not so much in cases like this; because of the other persons position.
Have you attempted to charitably paraphrase your understanding of their position ?
-->
@RationalMadman
I cannot find many better examples of 'case in point' with the direct reply someone gives to an accurate callout of their methods.
Perhaps they're aiming for "comedic effect" ?
-->
@Ramshutu
Show that systemic racism exists or leave.
-->
@3RU7AL
Have you attempted to charitably paraphrase your understanding of their position ?
He knows what my position is.
We should be waiting on Ram providing a case to prove systemic racism exists (to fulfil his burden of proof), but as I've come to realize in the past 20+ posts he's made here, he has no intention of doing so. Instead, he wants to make it seem like he has a case, whilst never actually providing one. He wants to start with "imagine" and "hypothetically", but never end up with 'reality' or 'data'. He wants his words to look like arguments, but really they act as a smokescreen to call me a 'white supremacist' and 'racist'.
This is what sophistry looks like.
Don't fall for it.
Perhaps they're aiming for "comedic effect" ?
You reckon? You think I don't think RatMan wears panties? Wow. Didn't realize people could detect jokes on here.
What you do is dodge and demonise the opponent's way of attacking youThat's because it's Ad Hominem, you silly twit....you try your best to sledgehammer in your 'white supremacist' or 'fascist' Ad Hominems against me, don't get your panties in a bunch when you get called out on Ad Hominem and I intentionally avoid it.I cannot find many better examples of 'case in point' with the direct reply someone gives to an accurate callout of their methods.
I'm not attacking you in place of your arguments. I'm attacking you **after** I've attacked your arguments, on a separate note. The invalidity of your arguments are shown independent of attacks on your character, idiot.
Like most people on this site, you just don't understand Ad Hominem.
The case in point wasn't the ad hominem, it was that you dodged and demonised regardless of Ad Hominem.