:rolleyes:
Oh, I think not. You will, I’m sure, concede that a large majority of black Americans regards the Republican party as being unsympathetic to thier agenda. Now if, as you say, the Republicans are entirely innocent of racism, why are they still perceived otherwise by black Americans? Are they somehow slow in accepting what you regard as obvious fact? What would account for that?
Like I said the last time, read the thread. That’s been pretty soundly dealt with.
You’re making the classic ad populum logical fallacy.
Just like the other guy that stated this argument 2-3 pages ago, you’re not doing it very well, either. As you’ve inserted an apriorism.
Republicans are racist does not follow in any way from the fact that more black people vote Democratic.
Your wasting myy time with this bullshit. Read the thread, and stop recycling suvh obviously flawed arguments.
And by the way, I don’t think it’s cute manufacturing accusations of racism against my party from whatever shoddy and ignorant thoughts leap to mind. It pretty much proves my point.
No, it doesn’t come close to proving your point, that is begging the question. You have set up a position that we must prove to your satisfaction that the Republican party is appealing to racism. That is an impossible standard as there is apparently no quantity or quality of evidence that would satisfy you. One does not prevail or score points in a debate on the basis of convincing the other side, but rather neutral judges, people that did not have a position or interest prior to the beginning of the debate. Of course, there is no such judge here, and people on my side do not adopte the logical fallacies of others on our side, and presumably the same is true for the other side. And while the NAACP has set itself up solely for the political purpose of identifying and rooting out racism, apparently that carries no significant weight with the pro-Republican side.
Here is an update on information:
The participants may interpret it as they like.
Most people who believe that the Republican party makes blatant appeals to racism have come to that conclusion after reviewing the news and Republican actions and policies on a daily basis over a period of several decades. During that time we did not take notes in anticipation of this debate. Before this debate started and before I reviewed the facts, I was suspicious of Republican actions and tended to believe the hypothesis of appeals to racism. After reviewing the facts I am firmly convinced that not only does the Republican party appeal to racism, but that it is racist, although not openly so. The only evidence I have found in my search to indicate that Republicans are not racist is that they have taken the position that quotas and affirmative action programs are inherently unequal, a position I agree with. But when considered in light of all other policies and actions of the Republican party, on balance it appears to me that this is a cynical appeal to racism, inconsistent with the entire thrust of their other efforts, and playing to a sense of false victimization of the angry white male Republican voter.
While I can certainly understand the arguments that quotas and affirmative action programs may be racist and counter-productive, that ignores the fact that they were instituted as a remedy to several centuries of institutionalized racism and slavery, and that in the face of that context, having them for a period of time was a superior position to doing nothing. In my opinion, the time for legislated affirmative action and quotas (very different things in practice) has passed. There is no more political will to sustain it. But the curtailing of such programs makes enforcement of legal and social prohibitions against racism more important, not less so.
Scylla wrote:
Here’s the difference, Scylla: Clinton had the courage to stand up and speak out against racism, even when it could hurt him with constituents…
Clinton made that speech during his 1992 campaign, and it could have potentially hurt him at the polls by suppressing turnout among those black voters who shared Sister Soulja’s views.
Why didn’t George W. Bush take a similarly courageous stand against racism at Bob Jones U.? Sure would have been a good opportunity to appeal to the better angels of our nature. Why did he choose instead to invoke “states’ rights” during his campaign in South Carolina?
And as between Dubya and Clinton, which is the panderer?
Spoke:
“You do not honor?”
This is Clinton’s courageous stand while speaking at a meeting ovvertly promoting race violence?
Wow, what courage.
As far as I know, BJU does not suggest that anybody kill anybody else because they are a different color, nor was Dubya following a speaker promoting violence.
Clinton’s comments were pretty weak considering the circumstances, and so far I’ve seen no cite concerning the contents of Bush’s speech.
Cite, please? And make it a real one this time.
To clarify: I am asking you to demonstrate that the “overt” purpose of the meeting was to promote racial violence.
That’s not even a strawman; it’s just a disgusting lie.
Sparticus:
Completely untrue. I laid out guidelines for a methodology for a reasonable proof in my OP and several times since. To date nobody has bothered to present a reasoned argument.
The data presented falls into two categories, both classic logical fallacies.
The first is that of the unrepresentative sample. People are actively searching for individual incidents that can be construed as racism to draw generalizations about the larger group. Such selection invalidates the results.
The second is the fallacy of accident. This is finding an incident that is not representative or may represent an anomoly or exception, and using that to draw generalizations.
It is interesting to note that the bulk of the arguments are simply pointing out instances of perceived bigotry or racism by people who are Republicans.
The fact they simply keep doing so, and are starting to use the same ones over and over, tells us something. Since they are not addressing the objection to such a methodology and are repeating themselves, I’m beginning to sense a high degree of density here.
More interesting though, is that this is the exact same methodology used by bigots to promote racism.
Joe Race Conscious over at Stormfront can justify his hatred of blacks by giving hundreds of examples of blacks as criminals or doing horrible things. Then he relates this pile of individual incidents back to the larger group. He is not sampling, nor is he being fair. He searches specifically to select incidents that will tend to support his foregone conclusion.
Such a man deserves contempt.
These are the exact same methods being used in this thread. They deserve similar contempt.
Yes of course it is.
Sistah Soljah at the meeting promoted racial violence. Therefore I can construe that the purpose of the meeting was to promote racial violence.
This is the same logic being used against Bush for speaking at BJU. Some people there can be construed to be somewhat homophobic, and the institution has a rule against interracial dating.
The purpose of BJU though is not to promote homophobia and race hatred.
If you’re going to speak out about mischaracterizations it would be nice if you went after them on both sides.
That too is a lie.
"‘if black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?’ "
“We don’t have the power to do to white people what white people have done to us. And even if we did, we don’t have that lowdown, dirty nature. If there are any good white people, I haven’t met them.’”
I don’t understand. You don’t think this promotes racial hatred and violence?
I do. If you try to pretend it doesn’t, you’re the one who’s lying.
Reading comprehension is perhaps not Scylla’s forte.
She didn’t say it at the Rainbow Coalition meeting, Scylla. Clinton was quoting her from an interview in the L.A. Times. Get your facts right.
I’ll help you, Scylla. The racist comments of Sister Soulja were not made at the convention, but in earlier interviews. She appeared at the convention as an entertainer. Clinton was rebuking the Rainbow Coalition for inviting her to perform in view of her past racist remarks.
She was appointed as a panelist as well.
I’m aware of where the comments were made, and that Bill had taken them out of context to win points, and as a stab in the back to Jesse Jackson.
It wasn’t an act of courage it was an act of betrayal, and Clinton recieved thunderous applause for his comments.
It was an act of sleazy cowardice.
Here’s a cite:
Oh, so you knew where she made the comments, but you lied about it anyway? Just like you knew the meeting wasn’t overtly promoting racial violence, and you lied about that too?
Lay off the Limbaugh, Scylla. I know it’s like heroin, but it’s obviously doing terrible things to you.
If decrying racism (even among those who might be friendly to your campaign) amounts to “sleazy cowardice,” then I sure wish George W. Bush had exhibited some of that same sort of “sleazy cowardice” at Bob Jones U.