-->
@Double_R
The left’s (and your) denialism of historical truth is…Complete strawman.
No, HISTORICAL FACT!!!
Ignorant DENIALIST!!!
DeeSantis tries to whitewash slavery in school textbooks. What a sweetheart
Posts
Total:
121
-->
@cristo71
-->@Double_RMy post 16 response to you:“The OP contains a brief quote lacking context. Care to provide any?”Your post 44:we don’t need some black professor to explain to us what it says or what the point is, it’s right there in plain English.So, even when another poster directs you to the missing context, you refuse to give it any daylight… Surprise!
No surprise there given the fact that Double_R is a liberal progressive hypocrite when it comes to race relations in North America
-->
@Barney
Ignorant DENIALIST!!!
Reported for ad hom
So dummy is not allowed but this is? Is that right Barney?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I am an admitted and unashamed zoosexual
Well that's interesting, want to expand on that?
-->
@Barney
Barney knows full well that an observation ≠ an ad hominem.
To observe one’s uneducated position = ignorance.
To observe one’s denialism of the truth + denialism.
Ignorant denialist ≠ an ad hominem when that observation = truth
Your ignorance, IWRA. Of this truth knows no bounds.
And you were never reported for using the term “dummy,” dummy.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So now a state lead by a man who has made it his mission to fight back against addressing systemic injustices in AmericaHe's fighting back against fraudulent claims of entitlement and guilt which characterize "woke", which is an act in furtherance of justice.
Not according to him. I already walked you through this.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So now a state lead by a man who has made it his mission to fight back against addressing systemic injustices in AmericaHe's fighting back against fraudulent claims of entitlement and guilt which characterize "woke", which is an act in furtherance of justice.
Not according to him. I already walked you through this.
-->
@cristo71
we don’t need some black professor to explain to us what it says or what the point is, it’s right there in plain English.So, even when another poster directs you to the missing context, you refuse to give it any daylight…
There isn’t any missing context, that was the whole point I was making.
Even within the clip, the professor “explained” the instruction and everything he said about it is exactly what the left is criticizing.
On a tangential note, I would advise that you say “we [or just “I” really, as you should speak for yourself] don’t need some professor who happens to be black [or just leave race out altogether] to explain to us what it says or what the point is…”The way you wrote it, it just looks bad (as in bigoted).
Pointing to the fact that he is black was in direct response to post 19 (which is where my quote came from), which explicitly relied on his race for credibility.
There is nothing bigoted about eluding to the fact that one’s race is irrelevant.
-->
@Double_R
Yep… well, whatever.
I am continually in amazement at your uncanny ability to naysay absolutely everything put to you while also giving it the illusion of intellectual rigor and honesty. Alas, this further exemplifies why I don’t believe in your purported willingness to be enlightened by me or anyone here, really…
-->
@TWS1405_2
NO IT IS NOT!!! Not even close.
Wow, you really shut me down with your ferocious application of logic.
I always find it amusing interacting with you and watching how our conversations start off reasonable and then seeing you devolve into a shouting insulting all caps keyboard warrior after a few posts you can’t figure out how to handle.
And that is THE FUCKING POINT THE - WAIT FOR IT - BLACK SCHOLARS TRIED TO POINT OUT!!!!Which was ALREADY pointed out…yet you MADE ASININE EXCUSES to divert from that glaring fact to which you admitted to.
Yes, that was the point the scholars and school board were pointing out, which is exactly what the left is taking issue with. I just walked you through this in detail, how do you still not understand it? Did you read anything I wrote? Are you even trying to understand it?
Moreover, just think about the absurdity of what you’re fighting so hard to point to; Slavery in America occurred for about 400 years,Strawman fallacy. I’ve made NO such argument. Obviously. Since historically the TRUE fact is slavery was NOT a 400 year venture.
That answers my previous question, no you are not trying to understand what I’m saying. If you were you would read the entire thing and consider its context.
I was not strawmanning you by suggesting you are trying to argue slavery lasted 400 years. I began by pointing out that slavery lasted for centuries in order to put the fact you are pointing to in its proper context.
That fact (that some slaves benefited from the skills they acquired from slavery after being freed), when considering the fact that slavery lasted for centuries is so incredibly benign and so deeply pales in comparison to the horror of what slavery was that it becomes offensive to devote any time to it just as it would be offensive to devote any time teaching our kids about the positive trade offs to downtown NYC resulting from 9/11.
Do you understand the point that I’m making? Do you understand that this is not a dispute over any particular fact but about prioritization of which facts are focused on as I explained in my last post?
-->
@cristo71
I am continually in amazement at your uncanny ability to naysay absolutely everything put to you while also giving it the illusion of intellectual rigor and honesty. Alas, this further exemplifies why I don’t believe in your purported willingness to be enlightened by me or anyone here, really…
And I am always amazed at how you continually point to my ability to give ‘illusion to illegal rigor’ instead of providing a logical refutation of the points I am (fallaciously in your view) making.
This is a debate site, if you aren’t willing to go back and forth with someone who makes their points intellectually why bother? Would you prefer I take the TWS approach and just start shouting insults at you in all caps?
-->
@Double_R
That fact (that some slaves benefited from the skills they acquired from slavery after being freed), when considering the fact that slavery lasted for centuries is so incredibly benign and so deeply pales in comparison to the horror of what slavery was that it becomes offensive to devote any time to it just as it would be offensive to devote any time teaching our kids about the positive trade offs to downtown NYC resulting from 9/11.
Isn't even THIS bolded part pretty questionable? Slaves were freed in the late 1860's. How easy was it in, say 1875, for a black person to own a business in let's say South Carolina? I would bet that "benefits" flowed largely to the white business owners these skilled laborers ended up having to work for, far more than it benefitted the laborer. Especially if that skilled labor was a woman, a seamstress, for example.
-->
@ludofl3x
How easy was it in, say 1875, for a black person to own a business in let's say South Carolina?
Back in the 1800's, the means of production in the South was predominately farming, not "small business" as we commonly know it. Thomas Sowell has some great literature describing how some white immigrants came over with superior farming skills while others came over with very poor farming skills. Regardless of how those skills are acquired, there is a marked correlation between learned skills and prosperity in groups of all skin colors.
-->
@Double_R
Would you prefer I take the TWS approach and just start shouting insults at you in all caps?
Please don't lol.
-->
@Double_R
@Sidewalker
I am an admitted and unashamed zoosexual[Sidewalker] Well that's interesting, want to expand on that?
You missed all the 'fun', keep it in that thread if you have comments please (lest I be blamed for derailment).
So now a state lead by a man who has made it his mission to fight back against addressing systemic injustices in AmericaHe's fighting back against fraudulent claims of entitlement and guilt which characterize "woke", which is an act in furtherance of justice.[Double_R] Not according to him. I already walked you through this.
and I walked you through the difference between belief and reality. If he had defined wokeness as "the fight against (definitely real) systematic injustice" what you say would follow.
[Double_R] That fact (that some slaves benefited from the skills they acquired from slavery after being freed), when considering the fact that slavery lasted for centuries is so incredibly benign and so deeply pales in comparison to the horror of what slavery was that it becomes offensive to devote any time to it just as it would be offensive to devote any time teaching our kids about the positive trade offs to downtown NYC resulting from 9/11.Do you understand the point that I’m making? Do you understand that this is not a dispute over any particular fact but about prioritization of which facts are focused on as I explained in my last post?
If it was taught as a "but" or a "on the positive" side I agree. That is merely an assumption on your part however.
For instance if the story about the twin towers was supplemented with "but we built a new tower cause you can't keep us down" that would not be offensive. One could easily imagine attributing skills in slaves to their ambition in the face of adversity rather than some kind of justification for slavery.
...Then again when I say taxes are theft they tell me no one can build a road without stealing the money first. Based on that logic the only way to learn skills is to be kidnapped and enslaved.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
For instance if the story about the twin towers was supplemented with "but we built a new tower cause you can't keep us down" that would not be offensive. One could easily imagine attributing skills in slaves to their ambition in the face of adversity rather than some kind of justification for slavery.
Every culture has been enslaved at some point in history, and every culture has overcome and advanced. Some time in the future, people will once again, throw off the shackles of crony corporate government and prosper as well.
-->
@Greyparrot
I sure hope so.Some time in the future, people will once again, throw off the shackles of crony corporate government and prosper as well.
-->
@Double_R
Even this is an example of what I’m talking about. I will unpack the assumptions and debatable implications nestled into your question below:
This is a debate site, if you aren’t willing to go back and forth with someone who makes their points intellectually why bother?
1. More specifically, this is the forum section of a debate site. I can agree to disagree on the importance of that distinction.
2. The someone who makes their points intellectually, has an impressive knowledge base, eschews sophistry and rhetorical trickery, shows genuine curiosity, and is looking to be informed as well as challenged instead of going for the win or just trolling… is a bit of a unicorn around here. Also, the sort of debate I find worthwhile requires that at least some frame or frames of reference be shared rather than every single phrase or utterance being a point of contention.
3. Who says I’m bothering? One need only look at my debate count (big fat 0) and post count over the length of my membership here. You posted to me unsolicited on this thread; remember?
Would you prefer I take the TWS approach and just start shouting insults at you in all caps?
Frankly, I would like to see the last time you said “That’s a fair point”, “I stand corrected”, “I never looked at it that way before” and responses of that nature…
-->
@Double_R
@cristo71
Would you prefer I take the TWS approach and just start shouting insults at you in all caps?
How is “THATS THE FUCKING POINT!” an insult?
And you’re one to talk about insults. You are the one who insults those you engage with your pompous condescending undertones in how you address others who won’t kowtow to your obnoxious “I’m never wrong” sophistry.
Never once since I’ve been here have I ever seen you reply to another as Cristo71 has accurately pointed out:
Frankly, I would like to see the last time you said “That’s a fair point”, “I stand corrected”, “I never looked at it that way before” and responses of that nature…
You’re clearly too observably conceited for any of that nonsense (to you, obviously).
-->
@ludofl3x
Isn't even THIS bolded part pretty questionable? Slaves were freed in the late 1860's. How easy was it in, say 1875, for a black person to own a business in let's say South Carolina? I would bet that "benefits" flowed largely to the white business owners these skilled laborers ended up having to work for, far more than it benefitted the laborer. Especially if that skilled labor was a woman, a seamstress, for example.
I would consider it an uncontestable fact that some slaves benefited in some way from the skills they learned during their time as slaves. But you are right to point out (as I did in detail earlier in this thread) that it's a pretty absurd thing to point to when considering that the negatives of slavery for African Americans far outweigh any positives we can point to, so it's quite a bit dubious to even call them benefits at all.
Still, there are always exceptions so there are probably plenty of anecdotal examples of John Doe the slave whom we can say slavery worked out well for in the end, so I find arguing against the fact to be counter productive. It's like saying "no one is saying X" only to be shown a clip of one person who said it one time. The larger picture gets lost.
That's why I step back and point to the bigger picture and problem here, which is not about whether you can find anecdotal examples of your narrative but whether those examples are worthy of being included in the lesson and what it tells us about the people who think it should be.
-->
@Barney
Ignorant denialist ≠ an ad hominem when that observation = truth
Then dummy does not = an ad hominem when that observation = truth
And you were never reported for using the term “dummy,” dummy.
So either dummy is ok or TWS must be reprimanded.
Which is it going to be Barney?
Ignorant denialist ≠ an ad hominem when that observation = truthThen dummy does not = an ad hominem when that observation = truth
dummy
1 of 3noun
dum·my ˈdə-mē
c
: a stupid person
Your truth =/= [the] truth.
You clearly do not comprehend the difference between a noun and an adjective. One is @ the person, the other describes the behavior, attitude, demeanor, knowledge(lack thereof) of another.
Dummy = noun.
Noun = @ the person
@ the person = an ad hominem fallacy
So no, you are flat out wrong.
And you were never reported for using the term “dummy,” dummy.So either dummy is ok or TWS must be reprimanded.Which is it going to be Barney?
Can’t have your cake and eat it to.
Keep whining that hypocrisy…
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
and I walked you through the difference between belief and reality. If he had defined wokeness as "the fight against (definitely real) systematic injustice" what you say would follow.
It doesn't really make a difference. Whether he believes systemic injustices are real is getting into the reasons why he would be against addressing them, but either way the fact is that he has still made it his mission to fight back against them.
And when it comes to the conversation of whether he believes they are real or not, that conversation is hardly useful for anything. You know who else purports to not believe there are systemic injustices in America? The KKK, white supremacists, etc. We can never know for certain what one believes, all we can infer is from one's actions.
If it was taught as a "but" or a "on the positive" side I agree. That is merely an assumption on your part however.For instance if the story about the twin towers was supplemented with "but we built a new tower cause you can't keep us down" that would not be offensive.
Bit that's not what the lesson plan outlines. Yes someone could add that spin to it, but they would be doing that in their own, not as part of what was outlined.
Then again when I say taxes are theft they tell me no one can build a road without stealing the money first. Based on that logic the only way to learn skills is to be kidnapped and enslaved.
That logic doesn't follow. Roads cannot be built without money because people don't willingly work for free, nor do they contribute to the government voluntarily. People do however choose to learn new skills all the time.
-->
@cristo71
Frankly, I would like to see the last time you said “That’s a fair point”, “I stand corrected”, “I never looked at it that way before” and responses of that nature…
I have acknowledged errors when I found legitimate points against my stated position. It's rare though, so I'm not about to dig through my posts looking for them, and I really couldn't care less about proving myself in that regard to anyone.
What I take issue with is the presumption that because I hardly if ever tell someone they were right and I am wrong, that this somehow proves I'm not being intellectually honest or arguing in good faith. Intellectual honesty is reasonably judged by consistency, not 'argument loses'.
The reason I hardly if ever say I'm wrong is because I think about the things I say before I say them. If I'm willing to admit my positions are wrong after posting them then of course I would be willing to do so before, so if I take the time to think about it first I would avoid that situation to begin with by adjusting my argument before hitting "create post".
The other issue is that it seems most users think the bar for whether someone is worthy of their effort is whether they are likely to change their mind. Most people won't, and I couldn't care less if I change your mind. I'm not here for your benefit, I'm here to test my own positions (and because I'm bored). If there's something wrong with my argument, I figure someone here should be willing to show me. So here it is. Focus on what I have to say or focus on me. Your choice.
-->
@TWS1405_2
How is “THATS THE FUCKING POINT!” an insult?
I didn't say it was, that falls into the category of shouting and profanity. An example of an insult would be this:
No, HISTORICAL FACT!!!Ignorant DENIALIST!!!
-->
@Double_R
>@<<<TWS1405_2>>>How is “THATS THE FUCKING POINT!” an insult?I didn't say it was, that falls into the category of shouting and profanity. An example of an insult would be this:No, HISTORICAL FACT!!!Ignorant DENIALIST!!!
Wrong. As I explained to IWRA, that was a fact based observation of your lack of education/knowledge and denialism of the truth as presented to you.
Those are descriptive terms of said lack of education/knowledge and your observed denialism by not just myself, but others too.
Descriptives of another’s behavior, attitude, demeanor, lack of education/knowledge =/= insults (i.e., @ the person).
So once again, like IWRA, you’re wrong.
-->
@Double_R
and I walked you through the difference between belief and reality. If he had defined wokeness as "the fight against (definitely real) systematic injustice" what you say would follow.It doesn't really make a difference.
You're going in circles, I don't want to get dizzy so I'm getting off here.
You know who else purports to not believe there are systemic injustices in America? The KKK, white supremacists
You haven't talked to them have you? Also Hitler was a vegetarian..
Bit that's not what the lesson plan outlines.
Nor is the spin you assumed.
Then again when I say taxes are theft they tell me no one can build a road without stealing the money first. Based on that logic the only way to learn skills is to be kidnapped and enslaved.That logic doesn't follow. Roads cannot be built without money because people don't willingly work for free, nor do they contribute to the government voluntarily.
If people inherently don't volunteer that makes them inherently undemocratic.
People do however choose to learn new skills all the time.
They also build private infrastructure all the time. It was never really a sane position to hold but sometimes otherwise sane people think insane things when they suspend their own capacity for rational analysis.
-->
@Double_R
I have acknowledged errors when I found legitimate points against my stated position. It's rare though, so I'm not about to dig through my posts looking for them, and I really couldn't care less about proving myself in that regard to anyone.What I take issue with is the presumption that because I hardly if ever tell someone they were right and I am wrong, that this somehow proves I'm not being intellectually honest or arguing in good faith. Intellectual honesty is reasonably judged by consistency, not 'argument loses'.The reason I hardly if ever say I'm wrong is because I think about the things I say before I say them. If I'm willing to admit my positions are wrong after posting them then of course I would be willing to do so before, so if I take the time to think about it first I would avoid that situation to begin with by adjusting my argument before hitting "create post".
Oh, boy… you aren’t getting what I’m saying. I am basically saying, “You are going for the win rather than being intellectually curious and being open to other points of view.” Your response amounts to “You want me to go for the loss? No, thanks!” That is binary thinking.
It has been said that there are those who listen to what is being said, and those who are thinking of what their rebuttal is going to be instead of listening. The latter describes your style of discussion. I rarely, if ever, find myself saying, “Well, we may disagree, but at least we now understand each other’s positions better!”
The other issue is that it seems most users think the bar for whether someone is worthy of their effort is whether they are likely to change their mind. Most people won't, and I couldn't care less if I change your mind. I'm not here for your benefit, I'm here to test my own positions (and because I'm bored). If there's something wrong with my argument, I figure someone here should be willing to show me.
Ok, but you also seem to make it your mission to invalidate other points of view, in addition to testing your own. Realistically, what outcome would you like to see from an argument?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
They also build private infrastructure all the time.
Oh really? Give me some recent examples of “private infrastructure” projects the last 20 years that have benefited the public at large.
-->
@Double_R
I have acknowledged errors when I found legitimate points against my stated position. It's rare though, so I'm not about to dig through my posts looking for them, and I really couldn't care less about proving myself in that regard to anyone.
No you do not acknowledge errors…
AND
You consistently affirm what a textbook narcissist you so clearly are.
“A narcissist will never admit even horrendous mistakes and when confronted, he will deflect, delay, and tell more lies. He believes he is invincible and perfect.”
There is another name for it too…
“Intellectual cowardice is motivated by a fear of being shown to be wrong, hence its name, but at the same time desiring to recognized for intellectual accomplishments.”