You sure like them strawman. I didn't say it didn't have anything to do with racism.
Yeah, um, wow. Let's review this exchange:
me said:
And during that same period [Republicans] led the nation in passing the civil rights act.
you said:
Which has nothing to do with racism inside the Republican party.
me said:
You can't win the argument by fiat. Do the work. HOW does passing the single largest legislation against systemic racism in the US since the abolition of slavery NOT have anything to do with racism. This is a discussion (I thought) where you make a point and then at least provide a modicum of argument to back it up. This is just you stating things.
Firstly, as we can see from my entire quote, I asked you to justify your statement, in bold above (emphasis mine). Your response is that you didn't say that. I'm pretty sure the evidence stands clearly against your response being true.
And that isn't the point. The point is that he explained the Republican's strategy to use racism to get voter support. A strategy that is still used today. This is why Republican politicians panders to racists today, why the party can be called racist and why those who join the party have to deal with that even if they aren't racist.
No, he explained
Atwater's opinion. Thirty years ago. It was challenged almost immediately. Your point here is that because a racist thirty years ago that worked highly in the Republican party felt that he was still allowed to be racist by using different words (stipulated for argument) somehow proves that thirty years later everyone else in a many tens of millions of people party are racist (or tolerate open racism)?
Were the moon landings real?
You completely cut all of my arguments as to why I didn't agree and intentionally didn't address them. It appears as if you are not engaging in good faith. I am bending over backwards to read your responses in the best light possible, but this kind of thing makes it very difficult to do anything but think you are not interested in honest discussion and would rather just be insulting.
[sblock=There is proof it is motivated by partisanship. To favor a candidate. A Republican says it outright.][video=youtube;EuOT1bRYdK8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8[/video]
Yes, I'm not saying there aren't racist tools in the Republican party. There are. But you cannot logically argue from the specific to the general. Your claim is that the entire party is racist, but all you can provide are isolated incidents of members being racist or policies that are labeled racist under suspect theories of racism.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2012/10/02/the-pennsylvania-voter-id-fight-explained/[/sblock]Just that should be enough to debunk the ID BS. Of course, it isn't mutually exclusive. One can appeal to racists and favor a candidate all in one legislation!
No, it doesn't, as my point was clearly that laws that don't allow for free IDs have disproportionate impacts and shouldn't be allowed. Laws that do allow for free IDs aren't, and have been upheld by the Supreme Court as not racist. Goodness, for someone that loves to falsely throw out the charge of strawman (and improperly used a few times) you sure do like to do it yourself.
That is an appeal to authority, and a lack luster one as it implies scotus can't make racist rulings.
It would be, if I hadn't sited the exact reasons why it was ruled that way and how that avoids the disproportionate impact. At that point, referencing SCOTUS just shows that it underwent scrutiny by people other than you and me that deal with this kind of thing and decided it passed muster. Of course that can make a mistake, but I'm not relying on them as the sole point here -- I made and argument and showed that it was accepted by authority. That's not an appeal to authority, blindly citing authority as your argument is an appeal to authority. Having an argument and showing that it's well vetted isn't an appeal to authority.
Informal logical fallacies are specific and usually are when you replace an argument with one of the fallacies only. If you make a valid argument AND cite something that would be an informal fallacy by itself (like noting that authorities have also agreed with your argument), then it's most likely not a fallacy. Replaces argument -- fallacy. Accompanies argument -- not necessarily a fallacy.
Check Lee Atwater's quote again. He explains it pretty well. Defunding such programs impact blacks more. Or at least this is what some of the base is supposed to understand.
Yes, I've heard that argument, but by defunding PP, that money would go to other NGOs that do similar work. It's specific to a single vendor of a service, not the entire service sector. Further, it gets very complicated when you charge a effort that speaks directly to a moral imperative of a group that has nothing to do with racism (like abortion) with racism because one of the associated effects might fall disproportionately on a racial minority.
It isn't an allegation. He is racist. Base on is racist thoughts on Muslims. Switch Muslims for Jews and no one would question his racism. It just shows double standards.
Sigh, I've pointed out that it's not racism, and your misunderstanding of the difference between racism and bigotry, and that your continued insistence that saying something negative about Muslims is racist is, in fact, racist, yet you persist to ignore all of that and repeat yourself ad nauseam. Further, I directly showed how your swap doesn't do what you continue saying it does. If you are going to ignore my arguments in favor of quoting me so you can repeat your disputed charges, I don't think you're arguing in good faith anymore.
Address my arguments. Hand-waiving them away and repeating yourself isn't constructive.
That is hilarious. It doesn't make it ok. It would just mean that is what he really thinks. He just doesn't say when he is in control of himself.
Okay, let's go with that standard. I will stipulate that he is racist because of his remark when you stipulate you are racist because of your remarks about Muslims above. I can abide by a fair standard, and if this is your choice of standard, so be it.
And bigotry is that different from racism that it makes it ok? So you'd be ok if the Republican party was called bigoted instead of racist?
Nope. My pointing out your imprecision of language and attempt to intermingle separate issues in no way obligates me to agree with your points. Especially when I've taken the time to address them in detail and you've failed to even respond directly to those points. I've denied the charge of bigotry AND told you that you were incorrect in labeling possible bigotry as racism. My arguments aren't
that hard to follow.
So why not say the same about Jews and Catholics in the same sentence as Muslims? Why target that one demographics. Why why why? Such a mystery. I mean it isn't because there is strong islamophobic sentiment among Republicans, right? Of course not. And it isn't because it wouldn't be popular that Jews and Catholics weren't mentioned, right?
Simply? Because he was asked specifically about Muslims by the interviewer. Maybe you think he should have broadened the field for one question in an interview in order to make sure that you couldn't misinterpret his remarks, but putting the blame on Carson for failing to be generic enough for you when it was the interviewer than introduced the specificity is seriously off-base.
And that is better? That is the thing, you make a big deal about using the right word, but the problem isn't the word use, it is the discrimination that is the problem. You rationalize it, trivialize it and side-step it while it is just unacceptable. That is the problem with Republicans who say they aren't racist. They rationalize and trivialize, call it what you want, racism, bigotry, discrimination, whatever, and this is why the party and its members are labelled as racist even if they feel they aren't.
Dismissing my arguments are rationalizations and trivializations without addressing them and showing HOW they are rationalizations or trivializations (surely an easy task, no?) isn't kosher. You're dictating the results by presuming that premises -- that I'm wrong, so any arguments I make must be rationalizations and trivializations. Lo and behold, I make arguments, and you say they're rationalizations therefor they are wrong. You start with me being wrong, but you never
show where I am wrong, you just state it as bald fact without doing the work.
When a large part of the Republican base starts saying enough and starts supporting candidates who do not propose racist policies, that shadow will start lifting over the party.
According to who? You? Who decides they aren't racist? You've shown you're unwilling to discuss how Carson's remarks aren't bigotry (which you insist is the same as racism) even though I've pointed to a source (CNN) that isn't friendly to Republicans (at best neutral) that discusses this issue contemporarily with events and shows that his broader remarks aren't the bigoted sounding sound bite relayed by your source. You can't even see that people are manipulating you by provided easy to vilify sound bites for a reasonable and broad argument that ended up with the statement that he would endorse a Muslim that preferred the US Constitutional law and rights over Sharia law and rights. That's an eminently reasonable position, and one that applies to all religions and philosophies, not just Muslims (he was only asked about Muslims). Carson is nothing if not consistent (he scares me with some of his stuff, but the man is very, very consistent).
It allows it by structuring how it can't be applied instead of outright banning it.
Wow. It does the same thing about laws against murder and rape. Surely you're not going to now say that the Constitution condones murder and rape because it doesn't say anything about it? NO set of laws written in the 18th century bans capital punishment, why on Earth would you expect the Constitution to do so? That it doesn't mention it leaves it up to the legislature to adjudicate the issue, or possibly the courts based on the laws passed. Truly, this argument is just plain weird. I'd stop going down this road if I were you, if only to stop looking so silly.
Again, I refer Lee Atwater's quote on how Republicans appeal to racist by using abstractions. When a politicians proposes to deport 11 million people who are associated with an different ethinicity, it becomes hard to say that supporting the policy is motivated by rationality and not hate. Doable, I'm sure, but not credible.
No, it doesn't become hard. You look at the reasons provided and judge according to those. Adding your own and assuming the other person's motivations is a game in bad faith. You can hear their words, see their actions, but you can't know their motivations, and guessing leaves you open to charges of motivations you don't have. Further, I've clearly statement multiple times how
any immigration policy affects mostly Hispanics, so it fails at the start to claim that since an immigration policy affects mostly Hispanics, it's default racist. That's a rhetorical trap, an argument in bad faith, and just plain illogical.
You're missing the point. A party doesn't need to have racism in its platform to be racist. Do you agree with this? Lee Atwater's quote showed that PCism won't let a party be open about it. My argument is that what politicians say and do, and what the base supports are indicators of racism. You agreed that what Republican politicians say and do, and what the base supports are indicators of its anti-abortion position. Why can't it be the case of racism?
No, it's doesn't work that way. Abortion is part of the official Republican platform -- you would
expect Republicans to make statements about abortion. It follows the argument if A then B --
if the party platform includes abortion,
then Republicans will talk about abortion. However, the converse, if B then A, doesn't follow. If we stipulate your facts for the sake of argument (that Republican candidates make racist statements), the form
if Republican candidate makes racist statements,
then racism in part of the party platform doesn't logically follow.
Racists are part of the Republican party. Stipulated. They are a minority, and act as individuals because the party does not take racist policy statements. You claim they're racist, but that's all you do, you don't show how and why they're racist. In the face of arguments to the contrary, you snip the arguments and respond flippantly to single sentences and go right back to saying what you said the first time. If you can't respond in good faith by at least addressing arguments before you continue back to your point, I see little point in continuing this discussion.
