It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Those Who Accuse Trump of Racism are the Racists

page: 5
43
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




Yes you will take any definition that agrees with you, while dismissing the scientific definitions.


Keep digging....

Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue (Scientific America)

The real issue here is that the definitions don't agree with you.



The legal definitions of sexual deviancy once included homosexuality. Black people were legally considered 3/5ths of a person. I guess you have have agreed to that had you had been there.


Well considering I have been fortunate enough to have never lived during such a oppressive time I do not know but there is a interesting lesson from this comment that you would do well to heed. Our understanding of such things change over time, just like how race was once thought of as being just about the colour of ones skin it is now recognised as being about much more than that, including ones nationality.


Keep swinging and missing. Dictionaries record definitions over time, not the UN.

Personally, I don’t even believe in races. You can see one of my last threads for that.




posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You do realise that you are just trying to twist the definitions to suit your own agenda.

I can understand why you are doing it.

I mean if you concede that discrimination against nationality is racist then you have to admit that trump has made racist remarks and as such you are lending support to a guy who has been know to make racist remarks and my assumption would be that would make you uncomfortable.

The fact remains, racial discrimination includes discrimination based on the grounds of nationality.



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You do realise that you are just trying to twist the definitions to suit your own agenda.

I can understand why you are doing it.

I mean if you concede that discrimination against nationality is racist then you have to admit that trump has made racist remarks and as such you are lending support to a guy who has been know to make racist remarks and my assumption would be that would make you uncomfortable.

The fact remains, racial discrimination includes discrimination based on the grounds of nationality.



To believe discrimination based on nationality is racist, you’d have to call ever foreign policy, war, even Miss Universe racist. But no, a nation is not a race. Of couse, all you have to do is look at the dictionary to prove your appeal to definition wrong.



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



To believe discrimination based on nationality is racist, you’d have to call ever foreign policy, war, even Miss Universe racist.


No you wouldn't....



all you have to do is look at the dictionary to prove your appeal to definition wrong.


Its getting embarrassing how you think a dictionary definition of racism is more accurate than a internationally agreed definition as set out by the UN or other legal definitions.

Even if you want to use the dictionary it does not back up what you are saying

According to the Oxford Dictonary...



1.2 A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group.
‘we Scots were a bloodthirsty race then’


So even at that.....

You are still wrong!

I think it is fast approaching the time you just concede the point and we move on to the next thread.

So a question:

Given that the dictionary, the UN, science and the legal definitions of various states along with the definitions given by other bodies all point to racial discrimination including discrimination based on nationality do you now admit that yes, to discriminate against someone based on their nationality is racist?

Yes or no?

Because as enjoyable as this debate was a few pages ago its starting to get tiring.



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You won’t even paste the full definition. Tragic.



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You won’t even paste the full definition. Tragic.


Do you want me to quote the full thing because that only makes it worse for you!

I am not going to quote the full page, but here are some other interesting things for the dictionary you seem to value so highly....



1.4Biology A population within a species that is distinct in some way, especially a subspecies.


(not does not refer to colour of skin)

Here is another bit you will just love!



Usage
In recent years, the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts, it is now often replaced by other words which are less emotionally charged, such as people(s) or community


So again my question, which you have not yet answered.

Given that the dictionary, the UN, science and the legal definitions of various states along with the definitions given by other bodies all point to racial discrimination including discrimination based on nationality do you now admit that yes, to discriminate against someone based on their nationality is racist?

Yes or no?



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

No it is not racist. You’re appealing to definition.

Let me ask, If you lived in nazi Germany, would you agree to the Nuremberg laws because the politicians told you too?



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 10:28 AM
link   

edit on 9-3-2018 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

This is hilarious!

So at first you wanted to argue with me that it was not racist because legal definitions did not matter and that the scientific definitions were the correct ones. So I link you to evidence from scientific America that demonstrates that yes race I actually a social construct.

You don't like but rather than admit to it you then move the goal posts and start talking about the dictionary definition about how its the dictionary definition that matters.

Ok...

So then I demonstrate that no the dictionary also does not agree with you that race is only about the colour of ones skin

And now....

"I am appealing to the definition"

What a utterly frustrating way to go about debate, just admit to being wrong, its pretty darn obvious that you are wrong!

I mean you spent almost a entire page of this thread arguing for the dictionary definition [i.e., "The un is not a dictionary", "Dictionaries define over time". Then when you realise that also does not back you up accuse me of appealing to the definition, and you own link even states that:



Description: Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined by argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.

Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full underst


In other words.... don't trust the dictionary's definition, something I, not you, have been arguing this entire thread by using legal definitions.

YOU ARE WRONG

It is racist to discriminate against a individual based on their nationality. FACT.


edit on 9-3-2018 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

This is hilarious!

So at first you wanted to argue with me that it was not racist because legal definitions did not matter and that the scientific definitions were the correct ones. So I link you to evidence from scientific America that demonstrates that yes race I actually a social construct.

You don't like but rather than admit to it you then move the goal posts and start talking about the dictionary definition about how its the dictionary definition that matters.

Ok...

So then I demonstrate that no the dictionary also does not agree with you that race is only about the colour of ones skin

And now....

"I am appealing to the definition"

What a utterly frustrating way to go about debate, just admit to being wrong, its pretty darn obvious that you are wrong!

I mean you spent almost a entire page of this thread arguing for the dictionary definition [i.e., "The un is not a dictionary", "Dictionaries define over time". Then when you realise that also does not back you up accuse me of appealing to the definition, and you own link even states that:



Description: Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined by argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.

Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full underst


In other words.... don't trust the dictionary's definition, something I, not you, have been arguing this entire thread by using legal definitions.

YOU ARE WRONG

It is racist to discriminate against a individual based on their nationality. FACT.



You did not post a scientific definition of racism. You posted the part of the definition that speciously agreed with you while ommitting evidence to the contrary. You appealed to authority and definition to support your claim, all of which were lies.



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So how would you define race and racism then?



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Under UN definition would "white nationalist" be an oxymoron?

Also, should national anthems be considered hate speech?



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So how would you define race and racism then?


I define racism as the belief in race. Race-ism. But I am fully aware of the other, more popular, and even more idiotic definitions.



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So how would you define race and racism then?


I define racism as the belief in race. Race-ism. But I am fully aware of the other, more popular, and even more idiotic definitions.


Ok now what do you have to back that up or is that just your opinion on what race and racism is?



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So how would you define race and racism then?


I define racism as the belief in race. Race-ism. But I am fully aware of the other, more popular, and even more idiotic definitions.


Ok now what do you have to back that up or is that just your opinion on what race and racism is?


I have numerous arguments, none of which appeal to authority or definition.



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So how would you define race and racism then?


I define racism as the belief in race. Race-ism. But I am fully aware of the other, more popular, and even more idiotic definitions.


Ok now what do you have to back that up or is that just your opinion on what race and racism is?


I have numerous arguments, none of which appeal to authority or definition.


But anything scientific, legal or academic to support them?

Look dude I think it’s fair to say you’ve lost this one, happens to the best of us,

I know you will want the last word so you can have it. I am confident anyone with independent views would see the flaws in your argument and honesty I am a bit fed up of these kind of debates.

Take care untill next time.

Thanks for a interesting debate



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I wouldn't say zero.
Trump settled in court after 2 years without admitting guilt.

Let's be realistic here.
He's not Dr King and he's not Hitler.

Worst case scenario is he's granddad racist.
You can't deny the influence of the times you grow up in.


Except you’re confusing The son with the father


Donald Trump was the boss when it happened.
Sure, as boss of the company he's probably not speaking directly to the doormen but being the boss is about taking the blame for everything. (Or at least to lawyer up until a settlement is offered where you can avoid taking responsibility)

I like the guy. He's less racist than Hilary but he's not the second coming.
It's funny how it always has to be so polarising.

There's plenty of middle ground.



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So how would you define race and racism then?


I define racism as the belief in race. Race-ism. But I am fully aware of the other, more popular, and even more idiotic definitions.


Ok now what do you have to back that up or is that just your opinion on what race and racism is?


I have numerous arguments, none of which appeal to authority or definition.


But anything scientific, legal or academic to support them?

Look dude I think it’s fair to say you’ve lost this one, happens to the best of us,

I know you will want the last word so you can have it. I am confident anyone with independent views would see the flaws in your argument and honesty I am a bit fed up of these kind of debates.

Take care untill next time.

Thanks for a interesting debate


You lost it from the get go. Your opinions shift with whatever authority tells you. I'd be worried if the world wasn't already chalk full of relativist mish mash.



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar




Donald Trump was the boss when it happened.
Sure, as boss of the company he's probably not speaking directly to the doormen but being the boss is about taking the blame for everything. (Or at least to lawyer up until a settlement is offered where you can avoid taking responsibility)

I like the guy. He's less racist than Hilary but he's not the second coming.
It's funny how it always has to be so polarising.

There's plenty of middle ground.


Donald was the president, Fred was the chair of the company. But in court docs, it was the elder Trump specifically named in the testimonies.

FBI releases documents of Trump discrimination case

I don't know why someone would settle for middle ground if there is no ground there.
edit on 9-3-2018 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2018 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Day to day running is the job of the president.
Someone else doing his job doesn't take his responsibility away.

I'm gonna be a stubborn prick on this one.

Also, just out of curiosity.
Your sig "Againt intellectual cowardice".
Is that a typo?




top topics



 
43
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join