Ultraconservatives pretend homophobia/racism doesn't exist

Post Reply New Topic

do you have any evidence for the assertions first, that there is a named 'socialist' branch of the Democratic party, and second, that Obama had anything to do with it?

Also, you are flat-out wrong wrt. Republicans; they almost drive away non-white voters. Most Latinos, African-Americans, Asians, and other non-white groups vote Democratic, because the Republican candidates and the Republican platform indicates that they're not wanted. Republican ads show Latinos as scary invaders (link); they don't differentiate between Latinos who are illegal immigrants and Latinos who are American citizens. The ads show blacks as scary criminals (link); they don't differentiate between law-abiding African-Americans and criminals. They show Asian-Americans as foreign and having different interests than 'real' Americans, without indicating that the Asians in question might be American citizens. They generally show disrespect for Asian-Americans in their voting patterns (link, link). Furthermore, MANY conventioneers and protesters at Republican events display blatantly racist signs and behavior, at event after event, over and over, and they are seldom if ever denounced and/or asked to leave by the organizers of the event.
more links:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008 ... 010&page=1
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/m ... our-papers
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/m ... -vexes-gop

Not that most Republicans are actively racist - just apathetic and clueless, and willing to use race to scare up the white base.

This is philosophy 101. A conclusion can only follow from the evidence presented in each argument. Supposing an addendum to the conclusion is not a valid way of refuting the method; since the method did not make the claim that you are.

There are also valid categorical syllogisms which are tautologies. They are valid by their internal logical structure alone and they require no empirical evidence. What does require evidence is the truth of the premises of categorically valid syllogisms. To show the -soundness- of an argument, evidence is required. To show the -validity- of an argument, for categorical syllogisms no evidence is required other an an exhibit of the logical structure. See any standard textbook on logic.

ruveyn

Yes but a categorical syllogism can be invalid.

A categorical syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly three categorical propositions (two premises and a conclusion) in which there appear a total of exactly three categorical terms, each of which is used exactly twice.

For instance in this case the the categorical syllogism would be

The fine tuning argument makes a case for the existence of God
The moral argument based on universal morality makes a case for the existence of God
Therefor the fine tuning argument makes the case for universal morality.

This would be an invalid syllogism

Indeed.

There are 256 possible categorical syllogistic forms of which only 19 are valid. Fortunately there are definitive rules for eliminating the invalid forms from consideration or identifying them if they are used in a bogus manner in argumentation.

Logic 101.

ruveyn

He was listed as a member until they scrubbed their site... (Also it was officially called "New Party")

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladni ... obama-name



Actually it was because people used to believe the mainstream media when they called people racists, however it has lost most of its effectiveness now because people have come to realize it was just a political ploy by the left to demonize Republicans.



Actually it is more of we think that racism is stupid in general and recognize it occurs on both sides (white's being racist to blacks and blacks being racist to whites). This isn't the 1950s and 1960s, people that are actually racist has dropped significantly. The overwhelming majority of conservatives couldn't care less what color of skin someone has and think that judging someone based on skin color is idiocy.

The playing the race card repeatedly by the Left (Democrats and Mainstream media), actually helped the Republicans because it showed to the American people that the "race card" is pretty much a tool of the Left to demonize whomever disagrees with them.

and yet if you are using multiple arguments to support the same conclusion, you cannot pretend that the premise of one argument supports the conclusion sometimes but not others, nor can you prevent your opponent from accepting your premises and drawing other logical conclusions from them.

your proofs would be, roughly:

The universe is complex in an improbable way
Complex, improbable things require creators
Therefore the universe has a creator

Creators create with specific outcomes in mind
The created universe is uniquely suited to life*
therefore the creator created a universe with life in mind.

*This argument sometimes is stated, 'the created universe is uniquely suited to human life,' but when confronted with the idea that the universe is just as uniquely suited to sharks or jellyfish, you expanded the proposition to all life and thus disallowed a favoritism for humans.

Universal morality exists
Universal morality cannot exist without god(s) to create it
therefore god(s) exist

I am merely combining 'god(s) created universal morality' and 'god(s) created a universe so that all life could exist.'

Firstly, that's a right-wing news site (the subtitle is, "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias").
Secondly, they're citing a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is generally good with non-controversial subjects like flow cytometry, but is notorious for being edited and counter-edited by partisans on political pages.


No; the Asians, Latinos, and African Americans were not duped by the media. They were capable, just like everyone else, of looking at the racist ads and the racist policies enacted and seeing that some in the Republican party did not have their best interests at heart. Nor has that changed; minority ethnicities still swing Democratic in overwhelming numbers.


Unfortunately, they also seem to think that racism is over, which is patently and demonstrably not true (President Obama notwithstanding)


When, exactly, did Democrats play the 'race card'? When Obama was characterized as a Monkey and a Muslim by McCain partisans? When Angle portrayed all Latinos as illegal immigrants? When various Republican candidates characterize Asians as foreign and different from Americans in their ads?

The Democrats don't have to do anything other than shine a light on what the Republicans do over and over. That's daylighting, not 'playing the race card.'

They originally used New Party's own web site but that was scrubbed as conservative blog sites picked up on it. I actually saw them do that because it was there before I went to class one day and it was gone when I came back.

I don't have time to comment on the rest atm.

the legitimate "daylighting" was undercut by any pundit who called racism any time someone accused obama supporters of "drinking the koolaid" and any time someone drew a picture of obama as a monkey.

"drinking the koolaid" is a reference to suicidal cults and it's not hard to morph a human face into another primate's. (evolution strikes again.)









and this is all distracting enough that we can forget about actual racism because, hey! look at all this fake racism being called racism!

ffs, don't say "lipstick on a pig," though. that's a sexist insult aimed at sarah palin...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr4MCZXYSIw[/youtube]


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=typD4aRrHz8[/youtube]

None of the republican candidates would have been dumb enough to mention race as a factor. They supply clips from one of Obama's speech so if you have a problem with their credibility or interpretation feel free to argue your own stance. Him playing the race card which is exactly what he did was totally uncalled for. No one would have been dumb enough to attack him based on his race.


Now the following is completely unrelated I just stumbled upon and it disturbed me a little. So i decided to share.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPk_Al2hvqs[/youtube]

EDIT: ignore the title on that last video its pretty much unrelated to the content.

Last edited by ikorack on 11 Nov 2010, 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

...what's with the koolaid reference? I know where it came from, but fail to see how it relates to this thread.
Also, pictures of other politicians as monkeys fail to take into account the fact that comparison to monkeys has been a long-standing racist canard for decades, and has more significance applied to a black man than to a white one. There was a thread about it on the PPR forum recently, even.

that's my point. koolaid and monkey references can be taken as racist when they target a black politician but it's ok to use them about white people. that's the kind of thing people can easily call "playing the race card" whether it's actually being racist or not. i'm not saying that people didn't think about those connotations before hand. i'm just saying anyone with the slightest bit of bias is going to see "the race card" and completely miss the point.

and who's to say when they're wrong? sleazy people can be quite slippery about that sort of thing.

it's basically the entire point of this thread. that "ultraconservatives pretend homophobia/racism doesn't exist." when someone calls racism on something you're convinced isn't racist, you stop worrying about what they call racism on. when someone calls you racist when you're convinced that you're not, you're probably not eager to hear what else they disagree with you on.

ffs look at all the racist drivel in the "why black people are hated" (<-really?) thread and most of them don't consider themselves racist.





"you know he's not patriotic enough. he's got a funny name. you know he doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills"

"they're gonna try to say that i'm a risky guy. they're gonna say 'you know, he's got a funny name and he doesn't look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five dollar bills"

those are the things obama said some people would say about him. this is what the first two videos are criticizing. they can both be pretty much summed up as "barack hussein obama is accusing us of trying to play up the fact that his name is barack hussein obama."

what was the title of that last video? oh yeah. "the real barack hussein obama - racist abortion"



"the real barack hussein obama - racist abortion" is a pretty damn accurate name for that sean hannity video. that's the message they're trying to get across. that barack hussein obama supports planned parenthood and racist abortion. did you tune out before 3:00? did you just paste a few fox news clips that came up in a search on youtube of "obama plays race card?"

LKL:

also: those three videos. if they blow that up to being the same as a picture of obama as an african witchdoctor or as a muslim terrorist, they can pretend racism and homophobia don't exist.

The reason i said to ignore the title is because it was made by the user not the news network, in other words the title was irrelevant.

EDIT: The first three minutes really didn't have anything to do with the second half. Saying that Obama supports planned parenthood is not saying that he supports killing African babies, in fact if you would notice at the end the statement from planned parenthood attributes this event to local representatives going against company policy. So your claim that they have claimed Obama is racist sort of falls on its own head.

EDIT2: Yeah thats exactly what i did, I figured video would be better. The last video was in one of the related columns of one of the videos i clicked on. EDIT: Also I did try(albeit not very hard the ones i had seemed fine) and look for non fox news source but I couldn't find any.

Last edited by ikorack on 11 Nov 2010, 7:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.

The kool aid reference is referring to people buying into pure propaganda being spewed by what they consider an authority figure without checking things out for themselves. Conservatives like to use the analogy, "don't drink the kool-aid," when you hear less than honest stories from the mainstream media.

I make my judgments based on the ads I see and the statements and actions of the politicians (and their supporters), not what the media says about them.