Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Racist, funny or who cares?Follow

#152 Feb 25 2011 at 3:40 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Manifest of Kujata wrote:
The answer is a huge "no". Fun fact: most of the white slaveowners in the south were Irish immigrants running from English rule. They ran from tyrany and, when they had the chance to reject the idea of keeping a boot on the neck of someone else, they embraced it.


That's utter BS. There is no correlation with power and hatred. A poor person with no social status can be just as hateful as a rich person with social status. A rich person with social status can be just as loving as a poor person with no social status.

If what you're saying is true, then every white male with social status in the U.S. secretly wants to re-establish slavery. The social power only allows people with hatred to act on their hatred on greater levels, it does not produce the hatred.


Speaking of things with no correlation, your deductions from his post have nothing to do with what he actually meant. Though I suspect that I don't agree with what he's actually implying, either. Too many oversimplifications abound here.

Edited, Feb 25th 2011 4:44pm by Eske
#153 Feb 25 2011 at 4:49 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
I'm not sure what to think of this Alma vs Gbaji argument, it's even less entertaining than the usual Joph vs Gbaji sparring matches.


I'm enjoying it, for the novelty if nothing else.
#154 Feb 25 2011 at 5:29 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Manifest of Kujata wrote:
The answer is a huge "no". Fun fact: most of the white slaveowners in the south were Irish immigrants running from English rule. They ran from tyrany and, when they had the chance to reject the idea of keeping a boot on the neck of someone else, they embraced it.


That's utter BS. There is no correlation with power and hatred. A poor person with no social status can be just as hateful as a rich person with social status. A rich person with social status can be just as loving as a poor person with no social status.

If what you're saying is true, then every white male with social status in the U.S. secretly wants to re-establish slavery. The social power only allows people with hatred to act on their hatred on greater levels, it does not produce the hatred.


Speaking of things with no correlation, your deductions from his post have nothing to do with what he actually meant. Though I suspect that I don't agree with what he's actually implying, either. Too many oversimplifications abound here.

Edited, Feb 25th 2011 4:44pm by Eske


Well, what did I miss? What was he implying?
#155 Feb 25 2011 at 5:31 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Pretty sure he was demonstrating that being oppressed does not preclude one from avoiding the high road when the shoe is on the other foot.
#156 Feb 25 2011 at 5:39 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
@gbaji; just read, well, maybe only half of your reply to me, but whatever. You're hopeless.
#157 Feb 25 2011 at 6:15 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Kachi wrote:
Pretty sure he was demonstrating that being oppressed does not preclude one from avoiding the high road when the shoe is on the other foot.


Oh... well, my bad...

I WAS WRONG...

wow, look at that... >.>
#158 Feb 25 2011 at 6:58 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Almalieque wrote:
While this maybe true, a person that isn't open minded is less likely to admit to being wrong.

Well, less likely to admit they are wrong about an issues they care about. No one wants to think of themselves as closed minded, bigoted, or biased; so often people will find token issues to concede on to convince themselves they are a reasonable person. I remember going through Lutheran confirmation and the process of "questioning" my faith; and even then I noted how dishonestly the matter of questioning the possibility of god was pursued then.
#159 Feb 25 2011 at 7:24 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
I'm a little close minded. On occasion, a little bigoted as well. And definitely biased, frequently.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#160 Feb 25 2011 at 7:52 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
I'm easily influenced by evidence, personally.
#161 Feb 25 2011 at 7:55 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Allegory wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
While this maybe true, a person that isn't open minded is less likely to admit to being wrong.

Well, less likely to admit they are wrong about an issues they care about. No one wants to think of themselves as closed minded, bigoted, or biased; so often people will find token issues to concede on to convince themselves they are a reasonable person. I remember going through Lutheran confirmation and the process of "questioning" my faith; and even then I noted how dishonestly the matter of questioning the possibility of god was pursued then.


I completely agree.. Especially when you question your faith. I wouldn't say that I questioned my faith, but I opened myself to take what the pastor was saying as "up in the air" to be determined as logical or not. This is as opposed to blindly accepting it as the truth just because s/he said so. At the end, there was no change in my beliefs.

Although what you said is true, if you're not able to see yourself as possibly "missing the picture", then you're not doing yourself any justice. No matter who you are, you don't have the answers to everything and your personal experience is just that. It is very possible that other personal experiences may very well contradict you in a way that you wouldn't have ever imagined.

This is part of the reason why I like to travel the world and see other countries. When you travel abroad, you'll realize that your view on life is very different from others.
#162 Feb 25 2011 at 8:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sigh. Don't know why I bother, but I'll try again:

Almalieque wrote:
Well, like I tell everyone else who pulls that same stunt, you're just using a cop out because you don't want to contradict your claim.


No. We "pull that stunt" because you have an amazing ability to completely misunderstand what other people are saying, then twist that misunderstanding around and respond with something that has nothing at all to do with the original topic, and then jump up and down and complain when people don't want to argue with you about something they never said and don't really care about anyway.

Quote:
You responded to my "family is your race" comment with the interpretation as "your race is your family" which is an incredibly stupid interpretation.


Because you used the argument that helping out your "friends and family" isn't racism as support for your earlier statement that members of a racial group should help out members of their own racial group.


I sometimes use a debating method where if I see someone use a fallacious argument, I will disprove that argument by first assuming that it is true and then showing that it leads us to an absurd or impossible conclusion. Most of the time people get what I'm doing. Occasionally, someone (like you) will miss that I'm testing their own argument and think that I'm actually arguing for the absurd conclusion. In this case, I took your argument that since helping friends and family isn't racist, then helping out members of your own racial group isn't racist and disproved it by showing that if it's "true", then all members of our own racial group must also be friends and family. Since that is clearly false, then the argument must be false as well.


Get it?

I am not arguing that all members of your race are also "friends and family". What I am doing is showing you that your argument assumes that this must be true, and since it's clearly not true, your argument must be wrong.

Get it?


Do you have even the slightest understanding of logic and critical thinking?


Quote:
You're only responding to comments that you think you can counter.


No. I'm only responding to comments that have some vague relevance to the point that I was making in the first place. I never said anything about people choosing to buy products that are aimed at their racial group. I never said anything about people choosing to help out their friends and family. I did say that buying products from a store because the store is owned and operated by someone of your own race is racism. And I did say that helping people out solely because they are of the same race as you is racism.

You keep tossing random words in, but they have nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Quote:
I see the problem with your understanding, but I can't help you understand if you refuse to participate.


Participate in what? Your own delusional ramblings? I'm not going to participate in that. If you want to stick to actually debating relevant points, I'll participate. But when you just start spewing what appear to be completely random points, and then insist that if I don't debate those points with you, I'm somehow avoiding some critically important thing, I'm going to just ignore it.

Stick to the point. You said that it was not racism for members of an ethnic minority to help out other members of their own minority group purely because they were both members of the same group. That is what I disagree with you about. If you can debate that, I'll participate. But I fail to see how arguing that it's not racism to help out your friends and family in any way affects or supports the statement you originally made and to which I originally disagreed.


Don't just read the words. Understand what they say.

Edited, Feb 25th 2011 6:07pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#163 Feb 25 2011 at 8:13 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Quote:

No. We "pull that stunt" because you have an amazing ability to completely misunderstand what other people are saying, then twist that misunderstanding around and respond with something that has nothing at all to do with the original topic, and then jump up and down and complain when people don't want to argue with you about something they never said and don't really care about anyway.


So the problem is that he's too much like you? It's funny because you don't realize how many times you completely misunderstood him, while it should have been obvious.
#164 Feb 25 2011 at 8:37 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:

No. We "pull that stunt" because you have an amazing ability to completely misunderstand what other people are saying, then twist that misunderstanding around and respond with something that has nothing at all to do with the original topic, and then jump up and down and complain when people don't want to argue with you about something they never said and don't really care about anyway.


So the problem is that he's too much like you? It's funny because you don't realize how many times you completely misunderstood him, while it should have been obvious.


Did you notice how he conveniently overlooked the "label argument" AGAIN... Instead of admitting that he was wrong on his statement on labels, he keeps ignoring the topic.

Well, I'll just wait till the next argument when it'll be me and him vs the rest of the forum. I guess it's slightly refreshing to be considered only a half idiot as opposed to a complete idiot. Then again, that's much more entertaining.

Edited, Feb 26th 2011 4:37am by Almalieque
#165 Feb 25 2011 at 8:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kachi wrote:
So the problem is that he's too much like you? It's funny because you don't realize how many times you completely misunderstood him, while it should have been obvious.


I have not misunderstood a single thing he has said in this thread. Actually, let me clarify that. I have not misunderstood the words he has written down. As to understanding the bizarre mental process behind those words? That's kind of a different story. I tend to analyze things logically, so it is hard for me to follow a completely illogical thought train.

Hence, why I just ignore the things that make absolutely no sense at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#166 Feb 25 2011 at 8:51 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
I have not misunderstood a single thing he has said in this thread. Actually, let me clarify that. I have not misunderstood the words he has written down. As to understanding the bizarre mental process behind those words? That's kind of a different story. I tend to analyze things logically, so it is hard for me to follow a completely illogical thought train.

Hence, why I just ignore the things that make absolutely no sense at all.


It was pretty obvious that you misunderstood some simple arguments that he made as I followed the thread, but of course you don't think you did. You have way more confidence than ability, as usual.
#167 Feb 25 2011 at 8:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Did you notice how he conveniently overlooked the "label argument" AGAIN... Instead of admitting that he was wrong on his statement on labels, he keeps ignoring the topic.


And you are playing "change the subject" again. Why can't you follow a single logical thread in a debate?

Stick to one thread of the discussion. Can you do that? Let's look just at the belief that it's not racism for members of a race to help other members of their own race in preference to those who are not members of their own race. Do you agree with, or disagree with that belief?


The problem I have with your argument style (and you aren't alone on this btw, many posters here do it as well, just not to the extreme you do), is that you make a claim and when asked to support it, you instead start talking about something else. It's what I call the "yeah, but..." argument methodology. The second someone questions one of your premises, you go "yeah, but..." and toss something else into the arena. Eventually, you've tossed so many different and somewhat unrelated things into the argument that the original point is lost and no one can follow the dozen different minor and relatively unimportant points you're making. And when they attempt to trim the issue down to just those that matter to them you attack them for ignoring parts of your argument.


I'll give you a hint. Many of the things you have said in this thread are not things I disagree with factually, but I disagree with "logically". What that means, for example, is that while I agree that it's not racism to help out your friends and family, that fact does not logically support the statement that it's not racism for members of a race to prefer to help members of their own race. The proof of this is to show that "members of one's own race" is not equivalent to "friends and family". Which is exactly what I did.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#168 Feb 25 2011 at 9:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kachi wrote:
It was pretty obvious that you misunderstood some simple arguments that he made as I followed the thread, but of course you don't think you did.


I'm honestly curious: What argument of his did I misunderstand? I've ignored several of his arguments as irrelevant, but I don't believe I've actually misunderstood them.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#169 Feb 25 2011 at 9:25 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
gbaji wrote:
Kachi wrote:
It was pretty obvious that you misunderstood some simple arguments that he made as I followed the thread, but of course you don't think you did.


I'm honestly curious: What argument of his did I misunderstand? I've ignored several of his arguments as irrelevant, but I don't believe I've actually misunderstood them.


I was sure you'd ask, but no, not worth my time. If it were either amusing or productive, I would oblige. But it's definitely not an amusing prospect, reading all that nonsense again, and in all the years we've had a back and forth you've never given me any indication that it would be productive.

Honestly you should have known better than to bother asking.
#170 Feb 25 2011 at 9:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kachi wrote:
Honestly you should have known better than to bother asking.


Of course. Why expect anyone to actually back up their claims? This way, you get to perpetuate your own assumptions about me and don't have to actually bother with things like facts. This is hardly the first time I've encountered the "Just call the other guy wrong without ever supporting your position over and over until the thread ends" tactic of debate on this board. In fact, I'd suggest that it's far and away the most commonly used counter I run into.

Most people don't want to actually debate. They just want to insist that they are right and then walk away feeling good about themselves. And I guess that's ok from a purely self-focused perspective. I just happen to think it's somewhat self-defeating in the long run though. I mean, the approach is designed to make you feel like you're better or smarter than those around you, but somewhere in the back of your mind, you have to know that you're really just lying to yourself.

I see it all the time though, so it doesn't surprise me one bit.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#171 Feb 25 2011 at 9:52 PM Rating: Default
****
9,997 posts
And the expected denial. Predictable. Of course it's preferable to the expected ensuing semantic quibbling over how you didn't actually misunderstand something.

You're pathetic, but perhaps worse, you're starting to bore me.
#172 Feb 25 2011 at 10:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kachi wrote:
And the expected denial.


I think you don't know what this word means.

I didn't deny anything. I posited an explanation as to why you were unwilling to back up a claim you made. Given that any reasonable person would wonder why you bothered to make the claim in the first place if you were unwilling to support it, I feel perfectly justified to speculate.

Quote:
Predictable.


It's like you're me, talking about you. What is predictable is that you'd toss an attack at me, but then refuse to back it up. And then get huffy because I pointed out that you just did this. Lol!

Quote:
Of course it's preferable to the expected ensuing semantic quibbling over how you didn't actually misunderstand something.


Ah yes. Mantra-like repetition of the statement you want to believe is true. Like I said. Predictable.

Say what you will about me Kachi, but I'm never afraid to back up what I say. Ever.

Quote:
You're pathetic, but perhaps worse, you're starting to bore me.


Ah! And the "I'd respond, but I'm bored/tired/you'restupid/whatever" line. Still predictable. How about doing something novel and not bothering to post something if you're not willing to discuss and/or defend the thing you post? Wouldn't that be amazing!?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#173 Feb 25 2011 at 10:17 PM Rating: Default
****
9,997 posts
Pathetic and boring. Ick.
#174 Feb 25 2011 at 10:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kachi wrote:
Pathetic and boring. Ick.


And yet you keep posting. Obviously, you're far more interested than you let on. ;)


Anywho. I'm off for the weekend. Have fun. And don't forget to feel especially good about yourself!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#175 Feb 25 2011 at 11:17 PM Rating: Default
****
9,997 posts
I admit I do enjoy the tragic show you put on following each reply.
#176 Feb 26 2011 at 1:41 AM Rating: Decent
Stop trolling, Kachi.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 164 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (164)