Affirmative Action

"IF" I am not a representative of blacks seeing as how I am just one, then your Thanking Goodness that I am not "representative" means what??? Again, what were you being thankful for? The power of one??

67%, Craven.... And don't you forget it! (Like Shaq saying, "Can You Dig It!)

Now, why you think I take things too seriously... I don't know because I'm having as much fun with this as you are!

This is just a mere exercise, Craven. Entertaining exercise at that...

Could you say who you intend to address with your post. I think I agree with you to the point where "common ground" isn't automatic and is perhaps difficult. (I don't think its foolish, stupid or impossible.... It just takes work... hard work to come to a "mutual understanding/agreement", etc.)

It seems that your thrust could apply to either Craven or myself. As I read it, it seems to cut against Craven's ideas more than mine. That's why am not sure who you're talking to.

Noah, With all the complexities of life, I find it difficult to argue about the nuances of why some people do not understand some other culture. The reality is that people in their own culture often times have difficulty understanding their own differences because of politics or religion. I'm not positing my opinion at any one person, but only in rhetorical terms.

If you really think that... then how is it that you are so sure about your position regarding it - i.e. that it is grounded in reasonable, objective fact?

That is to say that if I "can tell you more" then you are saying (are you not?) that you don't "know as much as you should know..." So that's like admitting to ignorance. And I don't think one can maintain that one's [yours] position less "idiotic" or more reasoned than someone else's [mine or Noah's] when it is based on at least partly on ignorance. (like what you've expressed below)

[1] The fallacy of yours is to make the whole entire use of the term "White Supremacy/White Supremacist" as one that is "Guilty By Association". Therefore, your rejection of Noah's definition of it which is, again, a definition that reflects a whole school of thought that includes blacks/whites/etc. (not to mention your lack of substantiating evidence that those who did not fit his definition.... his definition (not yours).... were still unjustly labeled WS) is a backhanded way to obfuscate and to turn the association into your adantage.

The flawed reasoning is:
"Since I don't think like "them" then I am not and they are the only one's fit to wear that title."

The fact that there is an inter-racial school of thought that shares Noah's essential definition complicates your view that it is one that is essentially ethnocentric or held by [black] ethnocentricist.
[I can provide plenty of proof of that claim if need be.]

[2] The fundamental basis and reasoning behind AA and reparations are the same. How it is that you can support one and not the other is evidence of your own contradictory reasoning. If you agree with AA and the purpose it was for at its inception then you have, in essence, agreed with the basic fundamental aim of and purpose for reparations.

AA as it is and as it was, was a cheap attempt at "reparations". Nothing more but an attempt to do as less as possible to address the issue...
(You might want to consult LBJ's speech at Howard University...)

[3] The "criteria" for not being racist being too dim or slim in your eyes is your cop out. If something has a "racist" impact it is racist nonetheless whether it comes from "recognizable" WS or not.

Such a criteria isn't contingent on you agreeing with it. If you want to attack anything for it locial soundness it is the criteria and not other side claims that should be attacked. Yet, all you have to say about it is that you won't accept it. WHY?

Because the only thing you will accept is for the term to be associated with and only with those "other" guys regardless of how it is defined. WHY? It gives you an out.

"I'm not like them so it can't apply to me."

Well, with an exception of saying what the results/effect of your views are, no such claim about you actually sharing the same exact beliefs as say the KKK (an example only, Mr. Semantics). So, inserting that you don't subscribe to KKK like beliefs is irrelevant. Your support for AA and claim of "common ground" is irrelevant. Those are all ploys of "association" and "disassociation" that are beside the point all of which you hope to use to your advantage, all the while assailing the [mis]use of "association" by someone else.

The definition that is so dim to you is not at all addressed by that, one of many of your shell games. The issue is whether Noah's definition constitutes racism and a condition that maintains or fosters white supremacy as in white [inordinate] dominance....

Try addressing that and not whining about "how dim it is"...

_________________________________________________

Again, MLK said "Most Americans are subconscious racists" so if he said that given his reputation then the pretenses that are behind

_________________________________________________

Also, it's funny that "Guilt By Association" as a fallacy is a position of convenience for you. You have associated me with Noah and everything he believed as well as whatever you think about "hijacking, loudmouth, self-annointed/appointed, militant" types. Evidence that you don't really care about the fallacy.... you just don't want to be "guilty" yourself.

That's why you are soooooooo concerned about the prospects of not being racist - and a complicit supporter (active or not) of white supremacy - being dim/slim.

The Association Complex you have makes it seems as if the term applies to so many that is applies equally to the most vicious as it does to the most benign and the most unaware or one with no intent. If you believe in unintended consequences that can result from an action (or just consquences period, for that matter) then I don't see why - outside of you obfuscating - you have difficulty with the concept and definition.

And the fact that such ideas do "harm" and henceforth assuming that one's thoughts and actions automatically don't because you just don't happen to believe like "them" is no haven from the truth that there are consequences to your thoughts and actions whether intended or not.

The point is more about being aware of those consequences and not assuming that since you think you are okay that what results from what you think is also the same.
_________________________________________

Oh and I guess that is also such a great indication of what your ethnicity is. I am sure you are black by your stated support for AA, etc. [I don't think someone black would have to make a point of that.]
While I can't speak for all black (and lord knows you can't), black people are not as concerned with nor do they have such an intractable aversion to someone calling them racist. By that I mean, they don't react like whites do to the term.

I've tried to explain that to 'whites' I encounter on-line all the time.
The "you're racist too" or "you're more racist..." little comebacks can only have weight (for as childish as they are) when and if the accusation causes as much an offense or insult to blacks as it does to whites. That would be, IMO, a very flawed assumption - evidence of projection.

Also, Guilt By Association as "defending",etc. Well, it can be said that you have defended the interest of "whites" here. So, since it is so easy for you to say that by my supposed defense of Noah and the things you say we say alike (as well as the whole "loudmouth, militant" thingy), then because you use the same exact language as "whites" do when discussing race then I am well within my rights (via the one's you established for yourself) to associate you and your views with "whites" and even call them "white opinions", seeing as how it can be demonstrated in several ways that a majority of whites hold those opinion and are the ones who predominantly do compared to others, since you can "label", "lump" and look at me as being the same as those of whom I remind you of.

Again, I guess you have positions and principles of convenience and not that you can demonstrably be consistent with, not to mention being coherent.

OH!! Do you care to comment on cicerone imposter take on "common ground" and how you said what I spoke of was categorical NOT it.

And, if disagreement can be seen as mere disagreement as it relates to "common ground" then doesn't agreement likewise equate to simple agreement? (You can use the word *some* before each undescribed article.)

LOGIC.... Craven....
We can't afford to waste it and can't continue to not properly use it!

From previous post:

".....Again, I guess you have positions and principles of convenience and not that you can demonstrably be consistent with, not to mention being coherent."

Anybody here knows whether an English translation will become available?

Can't you switch to the multi-language section? Some volunteers are always on duty there :wink:

To expand on Einstein's quote, "Culturalism is an infantile disease. It is the smallpox of mankind."

Noah,

You seem to be trying to base an accusation of "dishonesty" on my part on the issue of whose opinion is more "relevant".

Since it seems important to you I'll clarify yet again.



The answer to this is neither. Neither of us are anything more than an individual expressing an opinion.

This is a point I was trying to make to you repeatedly, because you repeatedly rejected the notion that your opinion is no more relevant than mine.

So in short, no neither of us "speak for African-Americans".

Now I am fully prepared to agree that the opinion you espouse may well be more closely aligned with African-American opinions on average.

It seems you want me to "admit" to this and I am completely willing to do so. I will also note that I find that inconsequential.

This is a logical fallacy in debate called an argumentum ad populum.

If you want me to cede that your fallacious argument is based on a premise that is correct that's fine with me. <shrugs>

But I will still emphasize the point that neither of us have a claim to a more "relevant" opinion. You can simply contruct an argumentum ad populum based on a subset of popular opinion.

Were the sampling to be more inclusive (e.g. not just restricted to the ones getting teh reparations but also the ones who would pay them) the argumentum ad populum would be on my side.

Since I don't think it matters whether the majority agrees with me I do not make this argument and it's a non-starter with me.

Now, whether or not you agree with me in the delienation between relevance of personal opinion and popularity of it do you at least understand it?

• Do you know my "position" on reparations?
  
• Have you ever seen me assert certainty ("sure") on the subject?
  
• Do you know whether my position has ever changed?
  
• Do you know whether I ever supported reparations?
  
• Do you know whether I have a criteria for my support for reparations?
  

If you do not know these things I ask of you the following:

Upon what basis do you comment on my position if you do not even know what it is?



Indeed! See, admitting to ignorance is not a bad thing.

For example, I admit to ignorance about your social status. I know nothing of it.

See? It doesn't hurt.

I also admit to ignorance about the practical implementation of your plan for reparations.

I am ignorant of the precise manner in which you think it should, or shoudl not happen.

So upon that ignorance of your position I seek clarification.

You refused. This is your prerogative and as I said, I extend unto you the invitation in the future should you change your mind.



Noah, unless you know everything your position is as much "based on ignorace" as you can claim mine is.

If you admit to ignorance of an aspect of my position then you too fit this bill.

Now if, however, you think my request for more information about your position makes your position one of superiority I disagree.

I think it important to address any ignorance you might have about your interlocutor's position. See above. I think you are asserting things about my position without sufficient information on it.

Now Noah, whatever you decide right now I will continue any discussion that is not about Noah the First with sincerity. I made very clear that my discussion about Noah would not be a serious one but I am fully prepared to discuss more interesting topics seriously.

Now I know you refused but I think that has more to do with offense taken at my treatment of you.

So without needing an agreement I will state that any serious topic (e.g. not about Noah, rivalries and such) you discuss I will trea seriously.

So I again extend my invitation to you to discuss reparations. No need to explicitly accept my invitation. I'll create a thread (perhaps tomorrow) and you can join if you think it worth your while.

Craven, your dishonesty and selective recollection of what YOU first posed shows that it was you who began this fallacious slippery slope!

I quoted you on that but I guess you have your self-contradiction Blu-Blockers (glasses) on!

Recall again.... your words:

Despite you little disclaimer it is you who interjected an Appeal To The Popular/Popularity. Within the context of REPARATIONS, when you said:

...combining that with you and your injection of "MANY OF THEM" into this debate (again, you were the first to try to stipulate to relative numbers) we can clearly see it is you who built an argument on the Fallacy you want to say is (uniquely) mine, simply because of your double-speaking disclaimers....

Well, Craven, am I to take this as a joke of a position (you know... not a truthful, honest one.... just one stated for the fun-of-it ) or as your real position? Please note that I will not be suspending the common understanding of the English language, the meaning of its words [you've] used, and the obvious implications of them WITHIN THE CONTEXT of what we have been speaking about. I will also not suspend the parameters and argumentative framework - CONTEXT - this discussion or at least my points are within.

You can abstract-to-the-ridiculous all day... but don't continue to think that I will sit idly by and watch you try to position yourself as a "better" debater because you can nullify your own words when they don't profit you in hopes that it gives you a position of strength.

AGAIN, WHAT WERE YOU BEING THANKFUL FOR?
If I'm not "representative" and couldn't possibly be by your abstract, "nobody and no one's opinion or voice matters to no one else" because we are all just simple individuals with mere individual voices/opinions that don't ever influence or impact others then WHAT WAS YOUR POINT?

Also, you know that is contrary to any real view of the world... There would never be any such thing as "heroes" or "great black leaders" - a phrase that you.... you introduced here - if individual opinions/voices are solely individual without reach, impact or influence on others. Try that dumb logic to forward your position for someone stupid enough to go for your double-speak.

Book writers, the news media, community activist, moms, dads, teachers, coaches, preachers, doctors, mentors......... etc., etc., etc. all those show the futility of your dublicitious assertion. AGAIN

What are you thankful for?... and Why?

"Craven... I apologize. I understand you're mad because I told you your views were IRRELEVANT to BLACKS THAT FAVOR REPARATIONS! I didn't mean to hurt your feelings and your balloned sense of self-importance! I understand the temptation to, out of spite, return the same type of licks and butt kicks someone gives you! I understand.... really!
Do you forgive me?? Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

Craven, your position past, present or future doesn't matter!
When you say Reparations is - when you have not heard/seen/ read my stated "position" on it other than my *favor* or endorsement of it - about my a Sense Of Entitlement and want for Revenge.... you have stated essentially your "position". The reasons why you have that position, since you obviously like for me to tell you over and over and over and over and over...... is IRRELEVANT!!!! to me as someone who does favor it, who does not characterize it as you do, and who does not fit you psychotic-paranoid description of the motivation behind support of the issue.

I could care less if you supported reparations five minutes ago. Likewise, I don't care or need or evern want to hear your opinion even if you do support it! Your opinion to me is irrelevant. A lot of that has to do with your intellectual integrity, but it is based on the fact that I am quite capable of forming a coherent position without one word from you. Why? Because I already have! and no amount of pro's or CON's from your feable mind will or even can influence or impact mine.... remember you said your views are irrelevant! and Oh!.... I do concur! I concur!!!

Your attempts at child psychology and hopes that your position will be of some consequence to mine is so very poor and transparent. It doesn't matter whether I have "sufficient information" about what exactly constitutes your position. I DON'T CARE! It doesn't matter to me! IT IS IRRELEVANT TO ME! and YOU.... YOU.... lol (as the embodiment of your position) don't matter to me!

So why the hell do you think I would care or feel like I need "information" about your position? Be honest about your pretense and accepting of what I have said. Your position is IRRELEVANT to mine!

I hope that doesn't hurt you too bad! It's nothing personal!

What are you cyber-deaf??
It's not about your "treatment of me".... It's about your sincerity but even more about what I have said. You position and thereby your treatment and your audience (with me and for me) are all IRRELEVANT! You keep inserting your self-importance here. Craven, you have proven yourself NOT important enough to me to establish the "common ground" ( ) to establish a dialogue. Your overatures are in vain.

[1] I did not come here to talk about reparations;
[2] I have not need to present my ideas concerning it for your audience;
[3] Likewise, I have no interest in entertaining your questions... ;
[4] I have even less interest in entertaining your concerns, critiques or confusions;
[5] I suggest that you study on your own and from "established" direct sources about the opinion you want to learn or hear about - i.e. consulting the opponents are an indirect source.
[6] I believe my opinion and views are irrelevant to you. I believe you have a - rational(e) - basis for what you assert for reasons that make sense to you. I do think your opinion is relevant to those who are inclined to think like you or who have the same rationale or reasons to believe and see the world as you do on this issue. Your position may also be relevant to someone inclined to support it or undecided about it if you are able to speak to something that resonates with them - emotional or rational(e) appeals - on whatever level they are on.

I do, again, feel those rationales and reasonings are irrelevant to me because they all rest on a different if not opposing worldview and do not resonate with me, they don't appeal to me - emotionally or rationally - and I dare say with anyone else particularly someone BLACK, who FAVORS REPARATIONS.

Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity... by none other than Craven de Kere!

CONTEXT:

[size=14][i]"It is readily apparent as much as you might want to pretend that you do not have the same goal in mind with Noah and [I][b]African Americans that choose to support ideas like reparations[/b][/i], etc. It matters not whether you agree with affirmative action or the historical viewpoints blacks have... It matters not whether YOU think reparations is a good idea or whatever..." "Frankly, [b]blacks that favor reparations [/b]definitely aren't looking for your approval. So calling it idiotic because YOU don't like it is irrelevant." [/I][/size]

FRANKLY, when it comes to such a consensus on reparations, I DO! (speak for or as those blacks do, which is all I have asserted) since I am a part of that 67% that is the cause of such anguish to you and "mirth" to me. RMBAOFL!!!

Remember, "African Americans are not a flock of sheep!" Especially 67% of them on such a controversial issue..... <*long sinister type laugh like the one at the end of Michael Jackson's 'Thriller'*>

CONSULT MY POST FROM Thu Jan 22, 2004 4:26 pm Post: 531632


When has this discussion involved or revolved around the "majority or the world"? Again, the context, here is NOT the majority of the world. And you can't stipulate what the majority of the world "considers" unless you know the "majority of the world" and what they "consider". Now of course your use of this idea is also a Fallacy, akin to that Appeal To Popularity. It could be properly called a Statement or Assertion or an Assignment of Solitude - your desire to create the picture that I am alone or in the minority...

Taken in combination with your explicit Appeal To Popularity - "most of them" - which was within the proper U.S. context, the only one relevant to Reparations as we and/or Noah has spoken about (I'm sure) - i.e. hence the "majority of the world" and what they consider is beside the point and you know it - you know you were trying to assert along with the references to "militant, hijacking, loudmouths" who I guess do not "represent" black people and aren't "representative" of blacks that as you alluded to, Most of Them [blacks] make more sense than me or others you feel don't "represent" blacks.

The implications are clear. You obviously think there is a viewpoint that "most of them" [blacks] have that is more "representative" than mine. Using words like "hijack" and "loudmouths" shows your intent to make assertions that are about what is relative... all of which is based on your relative view of what is or what you hope to be what is "representative".

So, compartmentalizing your argument, one point from another, will not help you or hide you from what the English language makes clear. I can't help if your own words trip you up!

Also, if I respond to your Fallacious Appeal To Popularity by (staying within the context - Reparations) frankly exposing it for the shallow and false assertion that it was.... that response is not a fallacy but rather a repudiation of your lame assertion. So, if you say "most of them" [blacks] make more sense than I do and you thank goodness that I do not "represent" blacks then you and I both know your attempt is to promote the idea that "most of them" [blacks] do think like I do and by extention don't support reparations.

So don't cry when evidence of your false hopes and dream comes down and shatter your PROJECTIONS of your insecure self, accusing me of exactly what you attempted to do.

Stupid!! Seeking "clarification" implies something has been said that is unclear as in not understood as already explained. The implication is when you inquire about the "practical implementation" and want some clarification on that is that I have posited the requisite theory upon which my support or favor of reparations rest. You are not looking to be "clear" about what I think per se... you can only really be asking to know what it is that I feel should happen and how.

All you know and all I have stated was that I'm in favor of it. There is nothing unclear about that! You may want me to inform you but I have said nothing that needs "clarification". I support, favor and advocate Reparations. Nothing could be more clear than that!

As to why and how this and that.... that's not a concern I have in terms of informing you as far as I am concerned. Your audience and your opinion regarding any of it is IRRELEVANT!!! to me! I have not sought and do not seek your audience concerning it. As it relates to that, You mean nothing to me!!!

You act as if I care about what you agree with or don't agree with. Balooned self-importance....

I have not stated that I know what your "position" is. I have stated that it is IRRELEVANT! My ignorance of it is, hence, irrelevant to this line of thought as well. You are assuming that I'm trying to assert some "superiority" and make some claim that my "position" is superior to yours.

You just can't keep from projecting, can you???

I know you are against reparations. That's all I need to know. You act like there is some need to know exactly what you think in order to know what the opposition to reparations is. I don't care what your personal and/or mail-order positions are.

The ignorance you admitted to was about the issue itself and not so much as to what my position was. What seems to be the problem with you sticking to and understanding CONTEXT?

You said I would know more about REPARATIONS in general than what you would as well as MLK. That's the ignorance you admitted to. You said you were ignorant to some degree about reparations period and not just my position. You also accorded me with having more knowledge - to drive home that point. I guess more specifically you have tried to say that you know less about what the positions are for those who support reparations both in general (because that's what you said) and my own personal views.

To the contrary, I have not claimed to be ignorant of what the opponents of reparations think. My support for reparations is not contingent on what they or you think any way. YOU ARE IRRELEVANT!! on that issue with me and so whatever constitutes your rationale - i.e. your position. Knowing what you personally feel in no way makes me any less knowledge or more ignorant of what opponents of reparations think.


You inability to understand and adhere to context makes your poor ploys at turn-a-bout so infantile and feable. YOUR POSITION and my knowledge of it has never been of any stated relevance as far as I'm concerned. If something doesn't matter or fact into an equation then "knowledge" of its existance or construction are also IRRELEVANT! Such is your position. It is irrelevant and a non-factor as far as I'm concerned. My knowledge of it or lack thereof has no effect on any thing I am about and anything I have said.

Your position is IRRELEVANT! Whether I admit to ignorance of it or not.... matters not. I have not stated that I need clarity or information on what your position is or on what the opposition to reparations is, unlike you have in reverse.

Understand that there are a different set of conditions/statements made by you and I. Therefore, there is no comparative "bill" that fit along side you (too).

Try elevating yourself from the childhood restraints of your logic.
"You did/do it too!"

Surely you can come with something better than that. When making comparasions... make sure all the components.... compare equally.
In your haste, in the same way as a child that makes those kinds of accusations, you have distorted and ignored.... even purposely lied about what it is you find and classify as of a like nature to your own behavior.

Of course we know children have a hard time distinguishing things, much less a problemed child with an ego problem. He will lash out and is incapable of seeing the "difference" (or even really concerned about it) between his behavior and others.

What fallacious slippery slope? I think you've been reading up on fallacies and are too eager to apply them.

Nowehere did I contruct a slippery slope argument, and much less a fallacious one. :wink:



It was merely an invitation to discuss something. Please calm down. <shrugs>



You've already said this. And I've already said that discussing it with me is no endorsement of my position. If it were your discussion here is contradicting your claim. <shrugs>

Anywho, I'll leave the rest, as it's the longest "I don't wanna talk to you, you are IRRELEVANT" diatribe I have seen.

My answer is:

Okay.

I was right, you were reading up on fallacies and overeager to apply them.

Please note that my comment to you was in no way attached to any other argument except that I do in fact "listen to blacks".

The precise number and what they are like in comparison to you do not reflect on that fact at all. And that most of them make more sense to you is in no way a fallacious argument as it was not applied to any conclusion whatsoever.

Now you on the other hand did use the popularity of your position among blacks to try to assert a greater relevance, your appeal to popularity was meant to support the notion that your position is more relevant. This is a fallacious argument.

After I pointed it out to you, you went looking for fallacies and how to apply them to my posts. But you chose a godawful example as the mention of numbers is not used in any argument of mine to support any argument or position I hold.

I did not say that because most blacks I know make more sense than you anything is asserted. I simply stated that in isolation. It was in support of nothing except that i find most blacks I know more sensical.

So if you want to illustrate that it was fallacious support for an argument please at least try to find the argument and the position that's being fallaciously supported. Because if you are just looking up fallacies and trying to apply them to me it shows!

You keep asserting that and given the fact that we've been over this.... you really must stop PROJECTING your mentality on me.

Of "greater" relevance... a "superior" argument....

Those are reflections of your thinking, not mine.
You took the jump to assuming that when I say what you think is IRRELEVANT.... that I was doing so for motivations that you know are yours. You are no one to be compared with. You are a non-entity because your thoughts don't measure with any weight. You can't even get your stuff straight let alone anything else.

A finalist doesn't compare themselves to someone who disqualified themselves from "the competition". You are not even a competitor on this.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I laugh every time you try to distance yourself from you own words and admit anew that your argument here is incoherent via being detached, unattached, fragmented and compartmentalized. You find it hard to relate your own ideas to each other huh?
[quote]African Americans are not a flock of sheep.
Many of them would see my goals as an improvement.[/quote]

What conclusion is applied here, Craven?
[If you're gonna lie.... at least make a good one!]


Craven.... you are the weakest!
And that's the only weighed, greater than - statement I care to make or will. Same ole lame selective memory and denialism from you....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.............HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...........................HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Yeah!! Stated in isolation.... Sure, Craven.... and you are as black as Beenie Mack since you "find" most blacks more sensical.

While you can PRETEND to ignore the obvious and the demonstrated (you are good at PRETENSE and PRETENDING...) that is not something I will do.
____________________________________________________________


Hmmmm.... And who's handling "black people's taxes" now???
Do you regard the present handlers as equally idiotic and decry the implementation that falls short of letting individual blacks have their own money??

Seriously.... do you really regard the handlers today with the same attitude you do "black leaders"?? Why or why not??

[Note: This is a rhetorical question. It also goes without saying that this also shows your true colors. What you both choose to emphasize and not to emphasize (even in relative degrees - a little less but nonetheless lesser) reveals so much!]

Thanks for showing your color, Brother!!

Oh! BTW (and I'd like for you to answer this):


So is this your way of saying your support the reparations advocates who say blacks should be exempt from being taxed...? Or should be taxed less than other U.S. citizens - i.e. given certain tax credit, etc.?

I like your idea.... Skip The Middle WHITE man that handling black people's taxes. Let black people decide if they want to follow (essentially) white "leaders" and where their taxes (if any) will go! Great idea! Craven!! Now we do have common ground on that!

That way black people's taxes/money we be used on things black see as in their best interest!... instead of having their(our) money handled by people who have historical taxed us and still discriminated against us, both by overruling our desires for a certain policy and by implementing policies that either directly harmed or was directed for the express reason to harm us. I think that would bring us full circle... back to a discussion on white supremacy again.


Please calm down... ROFL!!! Oh, I'm calm alright!
Feeling good and having fun... waiting to see the next way you will try to hide from your own words and continue your juvenile exploration into the adult world of debate. "You do it too!"

Man... That's my favorite!! Poor little Crave...
He thinks he gets the fussy at by me! Little him can't take being called IRRELEVANT! "I'm just as relevant as you are", he whines... The goes fast asleep after his Beenie Mack nephew pack of Milk & Cooookies!

[Daddy Mack] Don't put you hand on you hips boy! That's what's girls do!
[Craven Lack] But I want some Milk & Coooooookies...

Okay Craven....

One last question (one question asked the last time, that is):

Okay! What are you thankful for? and Why?

(It's not a hard question... Don't Fear It! Endear it!) :wink:

You are starting to sound hysterical, which I don't mind but please at least include an argument or two. <shrugs>

Let's recap:

An argumentum ad populum is made fallacious by asserting something based merely on popularity when popularity is not an established link.

So when you tried to assert a value of relevance based on the popularity of your position you commited this fallacy.

It was doubly fallacious in that you also chose as a limiting factor the group most likely to agree with you. This would be like saying your opinion is more relevant because you are a Republican who will vote for Bush and basing the validity of your self-appointed relevance based on the fact that most Republicans will also vote for Bush.

So not only did you commit a logical fallacy you took the silly step of first choosing a statistical sample that agrees with your position at the greatest frequency.

In short what you said was "My opinion is more relevant because it is more popular in the group that most shares this opinion."

A very elementary fallacy.

Now when I said that "most" blacks I know are more reasonable I did not use this to support anything but that.

You can't illustrate that this is fallacious support for any other argument.

I will illustrate a simple example. Simply name dropping with logical fallacies is silly to do without a basic understanding of them.

Were I to assert that Movie A is the most popular movie of the year, a simple appeal to popularity such as citing a survey showing that it was, indeed, the most popular would not be a fallacious argumentum ad populum.

So unless I am trying to support a conclusion or premise with the appeal to popularity without demonstrating a link I am simply not commiting a fallacy.

If you think otherwise, illustrate the fallacy.

Show what premise was based on my flippant remark. Since it was not used as a basis of any argument or premise whatsoever this should be an interesting exercise for you.

I don't fear this question. I had thus far avoided it because I had nothing nice to say. But since you demand I'll phrase it as nicely as possible.

I think this world is only big enough for one "Noah's Hard Left Hook!". :wink:

Back to trying to quantify by numbers, huh? Don't let it be a nightmare to you.... to realize that there are more people that think like me.

And you don't have to be nice to me. I'm not the one who elevates decorum... I'd much rather have truthfulness and honesty from someone who talks to me.

And the BS from the post above the one I quoted from... please!!
You are back to and sticking to violating those "high" principles you deemed important so long ago here:

Mixing up people's arguments and [falsely] attributing things to them that they did not say.

When will you ever learn that if you [your argument] is just that ugly, that no amount of face saving or lifting is gonna make you look any better. I am so entertained.... and I admire your incessant persistence if for not other reason that you are "man" enough to go down with the ship! Lord knows your ship has been sinking for a long time.

Craven, it's too late for the finger cork!