An honest discussion about Racism?

Manipulating another posters comments in order to produce an outcome that is completely false, is something most posters on forums like this understand from the get go. Apparently Patriot News never got the message. Of all the disingenuous and intellectually dishonest things he's come up with on this thread, this tops them all. I've seen this same thing on another thread from another conservative that completely altered another posters words, to paint a false picture. There's no integrity to this kind of thing. The title of this thread is "An honest discussion about Racism?. Apparently, if you're a conservative, the answer to that question is NO.

 

Benjamin Tillman was a democrat. Once again, you assume he is a conservative based on his record on race. However, if you look into his actual political philosophies, he would be considered a liberal:

This would seem to undermine your argument that South Carolina was never a liberal state.
The 6th district of South Carolina is represented by a liberal democrat.
One man waiving a Confederate flag does not represent the views of all Tea Parties or all Tea Partiers. This is yet another sweeping generalization that does not hold water. Once again you are making an unproven argument that the democrat party of today is the republican party of yesterday and visa versa which is blatantly false.

This is a blatant falsehood. Democrats even had segregation in their party platform. The only recently adopted a civil rights platform, whereas republicans always had civil rights in their platform. They also never renounced any Southern "Conservative" democrats that opposed it. You have not provided any proof of this. The above post is yet another example of you expressing an opinion but not providing any proof. It is more baseless allegations.

 

Here is yet another example of your straw man argument. Immediately after I said not all democrats are racist you say:

Here is yet another example of you using the "begging the question" fallacy throughout your post:

You have not shown conservatives were responsible for slavery, Jim Crow, segregation and lynching. The paragraph is full of unsubstantiated statements for which you provide no proof whatsoever.

Here's an example of an "ad hominem" fallacy attack:

Here's another example of a logic fallacy called "assuming the conclusion":

This entire post was so polluted with faulty premises and other logical fallacies to numerous to for me to take the time to go over them. You've accused me of not having an open mind, while at the same time insisting that only conservatives are racist, and liberals cannot be racist. Such sweeping generalizations are called faulty generalization fallacies. Later when I have some time I'll go back over you logic post that you did and look up all the fallacies you committed in that post. I thought it was so blatant and ridiculous at the time I didn't bother.

 

I agree. In fact, manipulation of another posters comments are actually against the forum terms of service rules. One can be banned for this practice. If you find that I have edited or changed the content of any post of yours that I have quoted, feel free to report me to the forum moderator. Your accusation that I have completely altered your words is a fabrication. Show me one post where this is true, I challenge you. Be sure to report it to the forum moderator.

There is another terms of service rule regarding insulting other posters. You have continuously cast disparaging remarks and insults against me. I will report them to the mods so that they can cite you for violations of the TOS and edit out the insults. Here are the post numbers that contain the insults:

#438
#615
#624

I'll leave the ones in where you call me thick or insinuate I'm a drunk because I don't think they will take them out.

 

Sadly he and a lot of people here have the same affliction.

 

That trump card works every time. You use Tillman as an example of a conservative, I prove he's a liberal and you just dismiss it because he's a racist and all racists are conservatives. That is another example of a logic fallacy. You know that not all conservatives are racists and not all racists are conservative. It is a faulty premise. The fact that he is a democrat does once again support my thesis that the democrat party has a long history of racism. But you would like to dismiss that fact. The fact that I have proven he was a liberal disproves your assertion that he was a conservative, which you would like to dismiss as well.

You are conceding then that not all Southerners are conservative then?

I am offended by the derogatory term you used to describe me. It is yet another "ad hominem" attack.
Let me offer you a little advice that you can take or leave. If you as an American find this offensive why have you not condemned it? Are you only required to condemn the actions of the left? Millions of people behave badly everyday, if I am required to condemn them all I would have no time left in the day. I do not condone his behavior. But I would defend his right to free speech even if I object to it. Because one person acts badly the entire Tea Party is guilty by association? That is ridiculous.

 

That is the same year they tossed the Mississippi black delegates off of the Convention floor, right?

http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index...edia/enc_mississippi_freedom_democratic_party

 

More ad hominem attacks. I think you should apologize. Just because you have this ill conceived notion that only conservatives are racist in spite of all the evidence I have presented to the contrary you think you have the right to put me down. I don't understand if it is so obvious to you why you are having such a difficult time presenting evidence.

 

I can't believe this guy actually takes comments out of context to build his straw men, and then thinks he's proving something. He's proved what a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bag he is, but that's about it.

 

Too bad. I'm offended that you've quoted me repeatedly out of context.

What? *********?? hehe. The nickname was used by the TeaParty until they found out it was a name for a Gay sex act. I don't find it offensive. I find the entire Tea Party offensive. The fact of the matter is that ********* or Tea Party or wing-nut or whatever you call youself is a political idea. I've been called socialist, Marxist, *******, commie, plenty of times. None of it however, discriminates on the basis of somebody's race. You can change how you think, or your political views, but you can't change the color of your skin. Big difference.

That's a total cop-out. It's the cheapest and lamest excuse and cover for what amounts to tacit approval. Everyone knows it. If the Republicans had any stones at all, they'd openly denounce racism, but they wont', because they know that they'd offend their base. Which only proves that they pander to racists.

 

When you have a bunch of conservative crackers from Mississippi that opposed the civil rights act, that's what happens. Did you really think that the rednecks wouldn't be part of the Mississippi delegation? Like Mississippi was going to send a delegation of liberals to the convention. Right. Engage your brain.

 

More ad hominem attacks. A sure sign you have lost the argument. I expect an apology once again. Thank you once again for lengthy cut and paste narrative filled with faulty premises and no proper attributions. I don't agree once again with your basic thesis and why should I? You have failed once again to provide proof that racism is a conservative value. Thank you for playing, please try again.

 

Don't hold your breath. I don't apologize to dishonest people, and you've demonstrated that. Pulling my comments out of context is WAY out of line, and a totally dishonest way of operating on this forum. You've created several posts that are the very thing you claim to be objecting to. Straw Men.

Racists are conservative. Every racist takes a conservative position on race. There is nothing liberal in their position on this. That's what makes them racists. They cling to traditional values, and reject challenges to those traditions and that's exactly what civil rights is all about. It challenges the social and political traditions that the conservative holds as important.

It should be obvious that you're in denial. You've attempted to use logic for your little snippets of out of context statements. I've shown you logical form that is not only valid but sound. Unfortunately, there is no way around that other than denial, which is what you're doing.

 

The POTUS LBJ is the one who came up with the "compromise" that resulted in kicking the black delegation of off the convention floor. You know LBJ, the guy that signed thr Civil Rights Act? The entire convention has a vote on seating delegates. So the democrats kicked them out of their convention basically.

 

Seems a few of your posts got deleted, Mr. News. Apparently somebody sent you a message. Lets hope it sinks in. Being exposed as intellectually dishonest kind of sux doesn't it?

 

That's okay I'll just repost them later with the entire post showing your straw man arguments.

BTW I have been reporting all your ad hominem attacks and misquotes so expect to get dinged soon yourself.

 

Here are 3 examples of your straw man arguments:
1) I never said that if a political point of view has racial overtones it should not be pointed out.
2) I never said that all democrats are conservative.
3) I never attempted to justify the "Southern strategy", in fact I don't even think there was such a thing.(*)I could go through just about every one of your responses and find a straw man argument. How many more would you like me to show you?Here is an example of an unsupported allegation:Where is your source? I'm not saying it is not true, but you make this accusation and you did not provide proof. I would also consider the accusation that, "I would not accept any evidence", an example of an unsupported accusation.You assume I believe in your definition of conservatism.(*)I am speaking of actual insults. You have called me racist, ignorant, a troll, an alcoholic, insane, out in space, dumb, intellectually dishonest, and a liar on multiple occasions. You've also used the terms birther and tea*****r.(*)

 

Why not just repost the entire original post for clarity. Wow! what a concept.

 

Actually I quoted you word for word. The mod is mistaken for saying I distorted your quote. I didn't. The quotes were directly out of your posts. Perhaps there maybe some bias on her part as I have noticed that she did not remove all of your ad hominem attacks that I reported. You on the other hand have misquoted me outright. and you still haven't learned how to correctly use qoutations as in this very post I am responding to.

 

You did it again. Dude....WTF?? Did you not already get the message that you can't quote me out of context?? WHERE ARE YOUR COMMENTS??? How does anybody, know what I was responding to unless they see what you had said that prompted the very things that you're quoting?

When I say this: "That's a completely ridiculous argument" What am I referring to? Where are your words that I'm responding to?? You really do not understand how to do this do you??

Do you understand what CONTEXT means?? Apparently you don't. It means that you have to include your own words as well as mine to reveal how what I'm saying relates to what you said. You can't simply take my words and then claim that it's a straw man by posting something outside the quote and then disavowing what I had said. That IS a STRAW MAN. It means that you are claiming a straw man, by creating.. A STRAW MAN.

Having been busted twice already for doing this, I have to assume that you simply do not understand what it is that you're doing.

 

Then how come you just quoted me without providing the quote I was responding to?
I included the entire post. It is unedited, word for word. It is not misquoted nor altered nor distorted.

 

Ok...it's more than obvious that you don't understand what it is that you're doing. I shouldn't be surprised, after all you haven't shown much understanding of your own conservatism, so why should I think you'd understand what "context" means.

THAT DOESN'T MATTER It's the context of the quote that matters.

Right. Of course. Everyone is wrong except you. WRONG! The MOD is NOT mistaken. The MOD knows full well that you cannot quote a poster out of context. You obviously are clueless on this. It distorts the meaning of the words regardless of it being exact. It distorts because the quote stands alone with no reference as to what it is responding to. When you do that, and then offer a response that is outside of the quote, you are taking my words out of their original context. One is left to assume that your outside response is what I was referring to. That's called a STRAW MAN.

As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute.

Contextomy refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning, a practice commonly referred to as "quoting out of context". The problem here is not the removal of a quote from its original context (as all quotes are) per se, but to the quoter's decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases or sentences (which become "context" by virtue of the exclusion) that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words."

I've bolded these explanations for your benefit. READ THEM. You are guilty of doing exactly what you see in the bold type.

Perhaps there maybe some bias on her part as I have noticed that she did not remove all of your ad hominem attacks that I reported.

Then again...perhaps your guilty of Contextomy, and she's completely aware of what you obviously do not understand. You screwed up Dude, and you got busted. Deal with it.

I haven't misquoted you at all. And every time I respond to you which is on practically every point, is why my posts are so long, I include what you said and my direct response. I don't