PC and Muslim Agenda

[Chinook]

But they are investigating the school district for civil rights violation (s). That's a fact.

You've yet to support that they are only concerned with the school's actions and not the cir stances around the incident. You also made the claim that it's hard to show discrimination in a legit court case. My counter to that was to say that courts are having an easy enough time siding with the accussors.

You don't know what a strawman is, either.

[Blake]

Why do you think that? What points have you made (at all really, but) where that was my reason for disagreeing with you?

Well if you're saying you called me a pseudo intellectual for no reason other than to be a , just come out and say so.

Then you didn't read the parts of the article I quoted.



Just admit you have no idea what proper argumentative structure is. Or in the very least, you have no respect for it. And that's fine; it's just completely pseudo-intellectual to try to claim any intellectual high road when you can't make it through a basic argument without breaking ranks and throwing against the way.

You threw up a dumpster full of words and you're telling me I should dig for it.

It's not in there. There's no source anywhere that says most ad hominems are true.

You talk out of your ass and you try to camouflage it by putting it in a mountain of drivel. Then when called out, you throw up another wall of text.

It's fascinating to watch, tbh.

[Blake]

You've yet to support that they are only concerned with the school's actions and not the cir stances around the incident. You also made the claim that it's hard to show discrimination in a legit court case. My counter to that was to say that courts are having an easy enough time siding with the accussors.

You don't know what a strawman is, either.

If there's enough evidence of discrimination in a case, of course a court will have an easy time in finding a defendant guilty.

Are you trying to say the court system is biased?

Give a case you're specifically referring to.

[DarrinS]

The kid pulled the guts of a clock out and put it in a small brief case. There was no ingenuity or creativity involved in what the kid did. What he made looks like a bomb to most people. And he took it to school. If he were white, you'd call him an idiot. But because he's brown, you semen shield him.

Yep

[Blake]

If he were white would he have gotten arrested

[DarrinS]

If he were white would he have gotten arrested

Schools are totally cool with toy guns and fake bombs (clocks) as long as you're white.

because det white privilege

[Blake]

Schools are totally cool with toy guns and fake bombs (clocks) as long as you're white.

because det white privilege

Well if he were to get arrested in exactly the same manner after showing off his clock to the teacher, then there's no discrimination, just more stupidity

[DarrinS]

Well if he were to get arrested in exactly the same manner after showing off his clock to the teacher, then there's no discrimination, just more stupidity

If he was white, they'd be talking about what a genius he is, offering him scholarships, inviting him on talk shows, inviting him to the White House.

Oh, wait.

[Blake]

If he was white, they'd be talking about what a genius he is, offering him scholarships, inviting him on talk shows, inviting him to the White House.

Oh, wait.

Minus the arrest

[russellgoat]

There's excesses on pretty much everything, PC is not an outlier on that, but our culture is what it is at any given time. You adapt to the times or the times leave you behind. There's plenty of examples about cultural shifts, from, say, smoking, to music, to clothing, to everything. We do live in a world now where you can find anything you want, pretty much, as far as opinion and information. It's up to you to be critical about how you inform yourself, and what you build your opinions on.

I just don't buy there's muzzling going on, when the exact opposite is probably true, there's more access to a gradient of opinions right now than ever before (and I'm not saying that's always great).

And overall, I don't think these cultural changes bring the "destruction" of our society or anything close to that, tbh. There might be pro and cons, but there's ample room to debate that.

If people just "adapted to the times" we wouldn't have any changes we have seen in the past decades.

[ElNono]

If people just "adapted to the times" we wouldn't have any changes we have seen in the past decades.

That makes no sense. People adapting and learning to live with the cultural rules du jour (even if they don't like or support some of them) happens all the time. Meanwhile, you have "cultural wars" being fought that will define what the "culture du jour" will look like later on in time. It's a constantly evolving process, but, you can stop at any point in time and more or less have a clear idea of what the main rules are at that point in time. And there's very few cases where the vast majority didn't adapt (off the top of my head, Prohibition comes to mind).

[russellgoat]

That makes no sense. People adapting and learning to live with the cultural rules du jour (even if they don't like or support some of them) happens all the time. Meanwhile, you have "cultural wars" being fought that will define what the "culture du jour" will look like later on in time. It's a constantly evolving process, but, you can stop at any point in time and more or less have a clear idea of what the main rules are at that point in time. And there's very few cases where the vast majority didn't adapt (off the top of my head, Prohibition comes to mind).

Yeah, I know most people adapt, but people also know that there are those who don't and sometimes succeed in changing the consensus. Being stubborn about your unpopular ideas is not always bad in the long run.

[ElNono]

Yeah, I know most people adapt, but people also know that there are those who don't and sometimes succeed in changing the consensus. Being stubborn about your unpopular ideas is not always bad in the long run.

Most of the time it is though, especially when your ideas are stuck in the past, and we did get new cultural developments that moved us to this stage.

I mean I have no problem with people that refuse to adapt, it's always their choice to live a miserable and bitter life (at least when it comes to the particular cultural phenomena), which is what mostly happens with people that don't move on.

But that's entirely their choice or problem, that's what I was pointing out a few posts back.

[spankadelphia]

The thing about the linear-progressive Whig view of history is that it's complete bull . Progress is not and never has been a one way street. Civilizations rise and fall. We're in the decline stage right now. Relativity and PC culture have effectively ended the advancement of knowledge of the human condition in the name of egalitarianism. "Gonna need mo money fo dem programs." "Das racist!" "Kill the farmer! Kill the Boer!"

The barbarians are at the gates.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What ship?

I'm very judgmental, but not quite so passionate as you flatter yourself to think.

I called you spiteful. I've even correlated several times now what topic makes you critical; factual arguments are as difficult as tao. I have no idea what your moment to moment state of mind is. I don't go much beyond to say that any time I talk of the god delusion you come at me waspish as you do here. You are quite the passive aggressive snit.

You are amusing when you go faux patrician btw. Telling me not to flatter myself as you proclaim yourself judge. Shall I take it as satire or were you trying to be serious?

[Chinook]

Well if you're saying you called me a pseudo intellectual for no reason other than to be a , just come out and say so.

I called you pseudo-intellectual because I think you are, or at least that you've presented yourself that way through our discourses. I've already explained exactly what I meant by that many times already. The point is that it's not an ad homenim, even if you find it insulting.

The point of ad homenims isn't to insult your opponent. It is to discredit them personally in hopes of discrediting their argument. When you make a false claim, especially one that's easy to see as false, you're making a bad ad homenim. Logical fallacies aren't supposed to be off-the-wall stupid. They're supposed to be close enough to good form that people who don't know the rules will take them as legitimate strategies.

You threw up a dumpster full of words and you're telling me I should dig for it.

I gave you three paragraphs (out of a much longer article) with bolded statements. It was a total of 60 words. WTF is wrong with you?

You talk out of your ass and you try to camouflage it by putting it in a mountain of drivel. Then when called out, you throw up another wall of text.

Lol, you haven't called anyone out. The closest you've come is talking about my spelling. The truth is that you want so badly to take intellectual high-road, calling out fallacies and logic and such, but you haven't done any work to get there. You can't talk about what "text book" examples of things are when three paragraphs and 60 bolded words cons ute a wall of text. It's anti-intellectual and bad argumentative form. The same goes for your near-complete lack of a constructive and your unwillingness to appealing to the stone as a rebuttal.

[Chinook]

If there's enough evidence of discrimination in a case, of course a court will have an easy time in finding a defendant guilty.

Are you trying to say the court system is biased?

You make it sound like it's cut-and-dried. It's not. What passes the bar for sufficient evidence changes with the times. I think the courts are significantly more victim-friendly than they used to be. It's not really bias as much as it is that precedents have established new standards.

But this is getting away from your original point. So are convinced that there was discrimination while also believing the DOJ has yet to collect sufficient evidence to feel confident in taking this to court. Is that interpretation correct? If so, what do you think they're lacking, and why is that not important enough for you to wait before passing judgment?

[Blake]

Civilizations rise and fall. We're in the decline stage right now.

When was our civilization's peak, iyo? Approximate year or decade

[Blake]

I called you pseudo-intellectual because I think you are, or at least that you've presented yourself that way through our discourses. I've already explained exactly what I meant by that many times already. The point is that it's not an ad homenim, even if you find it insulting.

The point of ad homenims isn't to insult your opponent. It is to discredit them personally in hopes of discrediting their argument. When you make a false claim, especially one that's easy to see as false, you're making a bad ad homenim. Logical fallacies aren't supposed to be off-the-wall stupid. They're supposed to be close enough to good form that people who don't know the rules will take them as legitimate strategies.



I gave you three paragraphs (out of a much longer article) with bolded statements. It was a total of 60 words. WTF is wrong with you?



Lol, you haven't called anyone out. The closest you've come is talking about my spelling. The truth is that you want so badly to take intellectual high-road, calling out fallacies and logic and such, but you haven't done any work to get there. You can't talk about what "text book" examples of things are when three paragraphs and 60 bolded words cons ute a wall of text. It's anti-intellectual and bad argumentative form. The same goes for your near-complete lack of a constructive and your unwillingness to appealing to the stone as a rebuttal.

A wall of text?

No way...

[Chinook]

A wall of text?

No way...

Appealing to the stone?

No way...

[Blake]

You make it sound like it's cut-and-dried. It's not. What passes the bar for sufficient evidence changes with the times. I think the courts are significantly more victim-friendly than they used to be. It's not really bias as much as it is that precedents have established new standards.

But this is getting away from your original point. So are convinced that there was discrimination while also believing the DOJ has yet to collect sufficient evidence to feel confident in taking this to court. Is that interpretation correct? If so, what do you think they're lacking, and why is that not important enough for you to wait before passing judgment?

They're lacking hard evidence. Or they're still collecting it. How long do you think it's supposed to take?

I think it's all cir stantial and they won't have enough of anything prosecute. But we'll see.

[Blake]

Appealing to the stone?

No way...

Mistaking tldr for a fallacy?

Par.

[Chinook]

They're lacking hard evidence. Or they're still collecting it. How long do you think it's supposed to take?

I honestly don't think something like this should take long. We're not assuming there was anything continuous going on, so it's not like there's some systematic issue they're trying to take down. Either they can show it's discrimination or they can't. I don't think it's unrealistic to expect them to either or get off the pot after six months.

I think it's all cir stantial and they won't have enough of anything prosecute. But we'll see.

Probably. And we will see. But what I think we won't see is if they do find mitigating cir stances. I think it'll either go to court (settlement) against the school/police or it won't. Even if Ahmed was exacerbating the situation, I don't think we'll ever know.

[Chinook]

Mistaking tldr for a fallacy?

Par.

Lol, you don't even know what a fallacy is. tl;dr has ALWAYS been fallacious.

[Blake]

Lol, you don't even know what a fallacy is. tl;dr has ALWAYS been fallacious.

Srs? You think tldr is a fallacy?

Lololol.