Amazing, absolutely amazing. Never did I imagine that the poll he used was asking that question. I thought no matter how ideological one is on this forum one would not be so blatantly misleading and dishonest.
Of course this doesn’t remotely resemble the rhetoric people used to use when talking about Irish immigrants.
Beyond that I can’t help but chuckle at how paranoid so many white people are about Hispanic immigrants.
Beyond that, thanks for admitting that your problem isn’t illegal immigrants but is instead illegal immigrants that are Hispanic.
Essentially, you just torpedoed your own argument since treating people differently based on their race or ethnicity, I.E. being more afraid of illegal Guatemalan immigrants than illegal Irish immigrants is the vey definition of racism.
Exactly how are Canadians of “[your] own physical race” while Mexicans aren’t.
Who else is not of “[your] own physical race”?
Jews? Italians? Slavs? Arabs?
Or they’re confusing him with McCain.
The current term they use to describe themselves appears to be “racial realists”.
Humanity continues to advance and evolve, because of the progressives and despite the conservatives, doesn’t it?
Using the standards of the OP, proof that Archie Bunker was not a bigot.
Martians. The tentacles are a dead giveaway.
In what specific way was my reasoning flawed?
First of all, let me thank those of you who supposedly favor evidence-based debate for clamping down on your own side when they do things like this. It means that I have to respond to your actual posts, and also waste time answering these things.
The link shows the famous scene from “All in the Family” where guest-star Sammy Davis Jr. plants a smooch on Archie Bunker’s (Carroll O’Connor) face.
Archie’s expression is not joy.
We have plenty of evidence from which to conclude that Archie is a racist. “The standards of the OP” are that we should use available evidence to reach conclusions. Thus, by the standards of the OP, we can conclude Archie is a racist.
Perhaps BobLibDem meant that by applying the standards of the OP only to this picture, what conclusions can we reach?
In that case, he is correct: using only the evidence of this photo, we cannot conclude Archie Bunker is a racist.
And to the actual evidence-based debaters:
The general answer, if I might be permitted my own summary, to “OK, how do we falsify the proposition?” has been to imagine targeted research. I agree that this is a good answer.
But I will also point out that the contrary proposition seems to have been established without such research. (I will concede that one link has mentioned such research, but no details about it have been given.)
In other words, the usual formula is that the proponent of a claim has the burden of proof. In this case, you’re asking that targeted research, carefully worded questions asked of statistically representative samples, be the standard used to falsify the proposition.
I say to you: shouldn’t that be the standard necessary to establish the proposition?
If the evidence-based debate line was directed at me, I did respond to BLDs nonsense earlier.
Both his recent post and your annoyed post occurred while I was offline.
Isn’t there a factor at work here you are ignoring that would tend to overstate support for Cain amongst non-racist tea partiers? As you are so found of saying, correctly, things don’t happen in a vacuum. These polls are taken against a backdrop of accusations that the tea party is racist.
So, wouldn’t you agree there is an incentive for undecided people who dislike these accusations to pledge meaningless support in a poll to Cain?
Hmm, this is unusual for a Bricker gotcha thread.
Typically he cites alleged error, hypocrisy or other perfidy committed by some left-of-center person or group with the implication that it’s typical of the breed, inviting the remainder of the clan to join in denunciation and shame that their cause has been sullied, after which Bricker can thank those brave enough to admit their flaws while sneering at apologists (i.e. those who have a different take on the matter).
But now even the brave, honest few who “clamp down” on the errant ways of their brethren are to be doubted, for they only “supposedly” favor evidence-based debate (while sneakily promulgating something else entirely, it would appear).
Gee, they can’t win no matter what they do.
I weep for the incivility of our political discourse. :(
If what established the proposition was anecdote, experience, and inconclusive statistics, then the properly framed equal and opposite counter-argument is counter-anecdotes, an alternate life experience, and other inconclusive statistics. Since that’s not generally possible, it usually just requires some kind of more rigorous study.
Consider Sam, my neighbor. He’s an old coot. He firmly believes that juvenile crime is skyrocketing because of parental neglect. He’s lived in the neighborhood for 60 years, and sees things he’s never seen before like 14-year-olds wandering the streets unattended. He hears news stories about gangs of youths beating people up, among other pieces of anecdotal data. It’s a more intricate web of evidence than this, but you get the idea. Now, I happen to know that juvenile crime is actually down in my area overall. And I were so inclined, I could probably show him the comprehensive studies and maybe persuade him.
But under your standard, I should be able to persuade him with anecdotes and inconclusive studies about juvenile free time or some such. I don’t think that’s reasonable.
You among others. There’s a group of people debating, and a smaller group interrupting the debate with contentless posts like that. When I respond, the inference to the casual reader is that my opposition arises from my underlying position in the debate. When you, or someone else who’s arguing the actual proposition disclaims drivel, it’s a stronger rebuke – not to the person posting the drivel, but to the lurker reading it all.
That’s an interesting point.
Yes, I suppose there is such an incentive. I have no idea how to measure it, but I agree it’s probably non-zero – there’s at least one or two people who might say to themselves, “I don’t have any favored candidate yet, but I don’t hate Cain, and saying ‘Cain’ will put a stick in the eye of those folsk that call us racists, so… ‘Cain!’”
This observation weakens my argument, but I don’t think it disposes of it.
It is reasonable, in a sense.
But you’re right: it won’t work, “reason” aside.
I guess I’m asking folks here to be more reasonable than Sam.
Back in the day, I think support for Jesse Jackson was overstated in polls. There were those who wanted to support the idea of a viable black candidate, and those who wanted to counter three image of racism. There were also those with a more malicious agenda -overstating support for the black man can be ideas to benefit a particular candidate. Don’t split the vote our we get a black guy…
Now, I’m by no means saying this explains all our even a majority of this support. It may be tiny. But I think it is a jump to assume that 30% support inn a poll translates to the death of the idea that the Tea Party is heavily populated by racists.
Can you give me a cite for the claim that racism is ignorant?
In fact, science hasn’t changed: someone’s race is a statistically significant indicator of many things beyond skin color (and I don’t mean just the PC-acceptable differences like susceptibility to hypertension and Sickle-Cell Anemia, explosive athletic power as required for football runningbacks and basketball fowards, etc.). Or perhaps it is just coincidence that in nearly every IQ test devised in the last 100 years, ethnic groups’ means and standard deviations are quite similar? Or that in the US in 1988, there were 9,406 cases of black-on-white rape and fewer than 10 cases of white-on-black rape (cite: William Wilbanks, who derived all stats from DOJ data, as published in "Frequency and Nature of Interracial Crimes,"Justice Professional (November 7, 1990)…and that these ratios don’t vary much across which which year you choose, which western country you select, or which violent crime you are interested in…? To me, not drawing valid conclusions based on group membership due to observed propensity for certain behaviors is ignorant and wishful thinking.
Illegal immigrants that are Hispanic, as a group, have different behaviors than irish illegal immigrants. One such behavior is incarceration rate. It is reasonable to therefore discriminate in country of origin.
Let me know if you can find any flaws in that race realism philosophy, will you?
I agree with this in principle, which is why I criticized him earlier in the thread. In practice, time is limited, and we choose our battles to maximize whatever is we try to get out of this message board.
Well that’s this thread done. (referring to the post before Mr. Parker’s)