snood wrote:Alright, Setanta, let's indulge your need for petty squabble.
It would not be a petty squabble, had you not dragged out the corpse of the horse, and begun to flog it.
Setanta wrote:snood wrote:One could. One could say many things. I think I am more qualified to judge how people view black males because I am a black male. For my part, I will say that I differ with you on this, and am willing to leave it at that, although I doubt you will do the same.
Setanta:
Quote:Certainly not--why should i? Having lived 50+ years as a white male, i could as easily assert, and with as much justice, that i am better qualified to comment on the degree to which white folks express racist opinions when black folks are not present.
...and I'd tend to say that was a reasonable assertion - you
would know more about how white people talk when blacks aren't present. Why should you leave this be, and move on? It'd make you look like a big person - able to have someone disagree with you, and not get all huffy about it.
You really need to be ableto step outside yourself in such a situation and see the extent to which this applies to you. I simply observed that a lack of black incumbents in high office is not necessarily evidence of a
degree of racism in the electorate. You are the one who got all huffy and decided to announce that only you are qualified to comment on what is or is not evidence of racism, trotting out a typical bit of idiocy on the part of American blacks which is to suggest that only black people are qualified to comment on what constitutes racism.
Apart from being absurd on the face of it, such an argument did not for a moment address the argument which i had advance, to wit, that more significant in a run for high office is the perception of those who will provide the funds. That was an observation of the justice of applying the alleged dearth of black incumbents in high office to a statement about the racism of the electorate. You didn't address that--you simply announced yourself as the only qualified member to comment on what is or isn't racist, and then attempted to suggest that any response on my part would be petty--of course, failing to acknowledge how petty your position is, the more so as you've never addressed the substance of what i wrote.
Quote:Why should you? Because you and I haven't got a great track record for civil disagreement, so it would save a lot of time and wasted energy to leave it.
You have your irrational hatred based on your reaction to how i describe religious fantatics to thank for the conditions you describe. I have never characterized you as a religious fantatic, and my comments on them are always referential to fanaticism--nevertheless, you show up with hateful and snide remarks whenever you see my comments in a thread in which the subject of religion comes up, to drip sneers, including childish alterations of my screen name. You have made your bed, and now whine about being obliged to lie in it.
I advanced a proposition, and so far, i've seen no one offer a substantive refutation of it. You are attempting to suggest that i should not defend my point of view because of your habit of responding in an unpleasant manner to posts i make with which you disagree. You can forget that.
Quote:Why should you? Because who knows, there might still be some hope you can come off as something less of an officious know it all.
Upon a time, you were cordial enough. However, having been wounded in your self-love because i refuse to refrain from describing religious idiocy as idiotic, religious bigotry as bigoted, and religious hypocricy as hypocritcal--
and even though i had never characterized you in such terms--you have gotten petty and nasty whenever you see me post something with which you disagree. You don't respond that way if you happen to agree with what i've posted, and the recent episode with a member who questioned your military service is an example. You only seem to consider that i come off as "an officious know it all" when you don't care for the content of my posts. That's your problem, not mine.
Quote:Setanta:
Quote:Your personal experience is simply not decisive.
I'm not as practiced with the terminology, but isn't it a strawman argument to present something the other person hasn't even said, and then argue against it, as if he had? I never suggested my opinions were
decisive, as you put it. I said I believe I would know more about how black men get reacted to.
No, i did not construct a strawman, but you are doing so now. What you wrote, on Page 15, was, exactly this:
[qutoe="Snood, In post #1925907"]Well maybe "willing to imagine" is descriptive of my stance, maybe not. I'd prefer to think that my 40+ years as a black male member of the electorate is more than enough that I don't have to imagine or conjur any realities.
No one would be happier if Obama was willing to pursue higher office, and if he found that he had broad support. I differ with some about the chances of the latter, and there are ample grounds for my opinion, not the least of which is mentioned above.[/quote]
Which clearly states that your anecdotal experience is a sound basis for your statment. As your statement was in response to my comment about your willingness, along with Habibi, to imagine a degree of racism, there is no reason to consider that to have been a refutation. Throughout all of this, i have steadily questioned the degree to which a lack of blacks and women in high office is evidence of attitudes in the electorate. Your statement here, however suggests the mere experience of being a black man allows you to see "realities" which others inferentially do not. So, i advanced a thesis, you failed to address the substance of the thesis, relying rather on the contention that your race qualifies you to perceive reality more effectively than those of other races (which is the implication, whether you now try to deny it or not).
So, i simply pointed out that your personal experience is not a decisive argument in refutation of my thesis--which it is not.
Quote:Setanta:
Quote: And, once again, the point i was making is that the number of blacks elected to high office is not necessarily to be considered indicative of a the degree of racism in the electorate.
It may or may not be. I think racism has more to do with it than you think it does, and that's called a disagreement. And once again, I say that you and I simply disagree about this, and I am fine to leave it at that, but you seem to have a burr in your butt.
I don't intend to abandon my thesis in the face of your bald contention that your race qualifies you speak of realities which is inferentially denied others because of their respective races. I'm more than happy to leave it that i advanced a thesis, which you did not refute in terms of the substance, but simply dismissed,
ex cathedra, by claiming an authority conferred on you by the mere accident of the color of your skin. Apart from the absurdity of railing against racism while advancing a racist thesis yourself (to the effect that the color of your skin qualifies you to judge such matters more surely than those whose skin is not that color)--you have offered nothing in refutation of my thesis, other than a racist statement. It seems to have left you with a burr in your butt that i not only refuse to acknowledge that as a decisive refutation, but refuse to be silent simply because you have used puerile insults in a attempt to silence me.
Now your have another burr to put in your shorts--i'm accusing you of a racist attitude.
Quote:Setanta:
Quote:In debate, it helps to address what someone has actually said or written, as opposed to one's personal stalking horses
From what's gone before, I'd say you should take your own advice.
As you have never addressed the substance of my thesis, but only advanced the racist proposition that the color of your skin authorizes you to speak with an authority which those whose skin is not that color do not possess, my remark is more pertinent than ever.
You will do better in debate to address what i have written, as opposed to trotting out your racist resentments.