are you generally more interested withmincing wordsor, are you generally more interested inexchanging ideas
--> @ShilaYou do realize there are more Black immigrants from Africa and other places with POC since 1865 than People with any kind of slave heritage exist today in America...There are also way more non POC that immigrated to America after 1865 than ever existed before 1865 in America. A lot more.What you are asking to do is demand a great many non-POC immigrants from 8 generations ago who never had the opportunity to have anything to do with slavery to pay "reparations" to POC immigrants from 8 generations ago that were never a slave and never had the opportunity to be a slave after 1865--> @ShilaYou can claim that it is "no problem"But the misappropriation of the recent Covid reparations proves that it's absolutely a problem with the current government. In a period of inflation and recession, asking people to do anything other than get back to work while the government agrees to stop printing money devaluing the standard of living for everyone is asking for the immediate destruction of the nation. Maybe after we get our finances in order, we can play around with reparations like we did with the Covid reparations that helped put us in the current economic condition. At least we can survive the economic destruction better with such a mismanaged reparations scheme.
It would be an Ad Hom if my charge of hypocrisy was instead of place of attacking his point.
are you generally more interested withmincing wordsor, are you generally more interested inexchanging ideasIdeas - specifically the critiquing of positions.
Attacking me for my using an Ad Hominem, rather than making any attempt to attack my point - that is, ironically, very much an ad hominem
Wally me through your logic here: Person A offers a litany of insults against Person B, to which Person B responds by explaining (a) the accusations are invalid, (b) they actually express the Person A own behaviour.
I am all for high minded moral arbiters
obsessing about the right or best way to argue and injecting themselves into other conversations:
but when this criticism is levied so unevenly, one cannot help but suspect that the reasons for objection is more about the who than the what.
do as you wish, of coursebut it appears to be an attempt to coerce, or shame your conversation partner into responding
when you could simply ask them
and perhaps restate or reframe what you believe are your "key points"
any negative comment on the person and or their motives is technically and ad hominem attack
and try and hold your conversation partner to THOSE SPECIFIC WORDS
i can claim all day and all night that "i've disemboweled your key points" and "refuted every argument you've presented"but if YOU tell me, "you've repeatedly ignored my key points" then, my "rush-to-declare-victory" is quite hollow
and does not qualify as "negative characterizations of personal motives and or personal character"it's a simple statement of factnot an "attack"
“and detailing your frustration and your personal perception of "hypocrisy” is a textbook ad hominem attack”
I am very much one for intellectually honesty.
any negative comment on the person and or their motives is technically and ad hominem attackNo it’s not.“Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself”
it’s kinda weird that you feel that demonstrating an insult does not apply to you, but actually applies to the person making the insult is an Ad hominem worthy of challenge - but the original insult was not.
Someone can claim all day and all night that an argument is a straw man, and insult them for being an intellectual coward.
“and detailing your frustration and your personal perception of "hypocrisy” is a textbook ad hominem attack”I may be a simple man, but to me - suggesting I am attacking someone personally because I’m frustrated, or I have a perception they are a hypocrite: sort of seems to qualify exactly per your specifications, no?
how do you measure "intellectual honesty" ?
your quote contradicts your assertion and matches neatly with my description
any negative comment on the person and or their motives is technically and ad hominem attack
“Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself”
i clearly stated that BOTH SIDES can obviously engage in ad hominem attacks
Me: Someone can claim all day and all night that an argument is a straw man, and insult them for being an intellectual coward.But if you tell them that they haven’t offered an explanation why the argument is a straw man; explain why your argument is the obvious reading of what they said, explain that the insult doesn’t apply, but actually applies to them - then their rush to victory is hollow.Given that, I’m not entirely sure what your objection is.you: if i attempt to paraphrase your position on a topic and you tell me it's a STRAWMAN then, i obviously failed to accurately paraphrase YOUR position and should probably make another attempt, or, alternatively, simply ask
i'm willing to admit i may have misinterpreted your goal please explain how unfrustrated you are
“and detailing your frustration and your personal perception of "hypocrisy” is a textbook ad hominem attack
does not qualify as "negative characterizations of personal motives and or personal character"it's a simple statement of factnot an "attack"
Considering your view on people of color, when you're in a area of people like you you certainly have privilege over someone who is a person of color. I don't understand how white people don't get that we have been able to move through society generally easier than people who are not white. This isn't rocket science. I think when you say the word White privilege people like you automatically assume that you somehow taken advantage of other people that's not the case it's just that you've benefited from being white. Of course you seem to hate everybody but white men so I don't know maybe you're just offended in general at everything.
Fact. Because, in many instances, decades ago, African Americans were denied opportunities to get a mortgage for a house. Even if they had the money and income to do so....The fact that they can buy houses now is irrelevant now. Because they missed out on the best time in all of human history to buy a house. Anyone who bought a house in the 70's or 80's, they'd easily see the house go up 10x value by now.So, yes, they can buy a house now that prices are over-inflated but missed one of the biggest opportunities in American history to accrue wealth.There are many black people who are renting now that would actually be owning property and passing property onto their children if racism didn't exist.
Black privilege in higher level education compared to Asians. Change my mind
Asian Americans are the highest-income, best-educated and fastest-growing racial group in the U.S, with Asians now making up the largest share of recent immigrants. A Pew Research survey finds Asian Americans are more satisfied than the general public with their lives, finances and the direction of the country, and they place a greater value on marriage, parenthood, hard work and career success.
Depreciation of a house is inevitable over time. Property values of the land do not inevitably rise. Especially property in a city where crime is on the rise.
When’d so many Biden lovers show up on the site. It can’t have been that long that I’ve been AWOL
Evil thrives when good men do nothing.
I’m back now. Let the counter offensive begin
Polytheist-Witch,I'm not reading your fucking blog. That should be considered spam
