Lest We Forget! Dem's Desire "Socialized" Energy Sector

Hmmm... wonder if royalty owners mineral rights would be absorbed via "Emminent Domain"?

Wonder if Maxine Waters will renew her desires once gasonline prices start rising?

Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ&feature=related

Views: 212

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bob on March 21, 2009 at 9:41
In your "p.s." you state you quote me. What was omitted in the quote is that those are not my words: I merely cut and paste from a variety of sources a myriad of definitions and viewpoints on racism.
I'm not sure I really get your point at all. But, that is my problem; not yours and I mean nothing by that.I'm just not clear on what you want me to take away from your analysis.
I thought I made myself clear, but perhaps I did not. I interceded because, in this thread, there were some inflammatory dialogues burgeoning with one side accusing the other side of calling the other side racist. --A tool often used in political debate and on infotainment AM radio shows these days; it's called race baiting and is used to nullify the issue at hand by interjecting a completely different real issue, race, but interjecting it in a way that neither issue is substantively addressed or solved. It's a very divisive tool that does not lead to solutions. I interceded merely to note that the bottom line, (for me as I cannot speak for anyone else), is that we are all racists on some level or another, under any one of the many definitions of racism (which was the long blurb -- cut and paste snippets from others' definitions and analyses of what is racism). At first blush, "racist" is a highly inflammatory word; it has become a highly inflammatory term because of its use and misuse in debate and argument, not to address the problem, but to avoid whatever the real issue is in a particular dialogue or debate. But, when you look at what "racism" is, in its many different forms, one can begin to understand that "racism" is not per se inflammatory. It is what it is, in our common sense understanding of what it is. It's not what it has been turned into by those usually with underhanded motives. One author has suggested perhaps using a different term since "racism" has been hiijacked. We could call it "bidetishism" or any other made up word. Forgive my rambling, I just realized that I am, but the point is, let's look at it for what it is; let's not pervert it for an ulterior agenda. To solve what is a very serious problem is going to take the reasoned minds of adults that are open to addressing it. And, let's not engage in race-baiting or engage in dialogues with those that use it as a tool. To ask someone if they're calling another person racist because they disagree with you leads nowhere fast and it is designed to thwart reasoned discussion. You may as well ask, in the middle of a debate about an issue involving women, "so when did you stop beating your wife?"
Permalink Reply by Bob on March 21, 2009 at 10:39
Expounding on the fallacy of the loaded and/or complex question, and in this thread, the question that was asked by one poster of another on this thread was, and I paraphrase: "do you call everyone who disagrees with you a racist?" or "Did you play the race card?" This is what's known, in common vernacular, as the "loaded question," the seminal example of which is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" It is, in logic, considered not only a dangerous thing, it is a type of logical fallacy. It has a built in questionable presumption and is a compound or complex question. It facially is a yes or no question, but either answer, yes or no, assumes the questionable presupposition true, thereby setting the answerer up to imply something that is not in fact true. Look at the exemplary "loaded questin:" Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer: yes or no. If you answer yes, that includes a multiple of answers. First, that you are married and Second, that you were before in fact beating your wife. If you answer "no." It means you are married and are still beating your wife. In other words, the direct answer, yes or no, is an affirmation of the loaded presupposition. Thus, the loaded question is one that cannot be answered directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny. Thus, the proper resonse is to refuse to answer it or to reject it. The loaded question is commonly used in debate or dialogue that is not intended to shed light on a subject. It is used to trick someone into implying something they did not intend. It is also used on cross examination by skillful lawyers.
Thus, in dialogue or debate, when asked a loaded question: "do you call everyone who disagrees with you a racist," the responder should not answer and cannot answer yes or no, or else imply that the false presupposition is true. If you answer yes. then you are stating everyone who disagrees with you is a racist. If you answer no, then you also imply that people who disagree with you are racist, but you just don't call them that. But, the person who posed the question did it on purpose. That person did it to hiijack the discussion away from the real topic.
Permalink Reply by Jay Murrell on March 21, 2009 at 11:53
Bob, Would you please deploy your erudition to explain the “straw man” argument in debate?

Jay
Permalink Reply by Bob on March 21, 2009 at 12:05
no. Use this opportunity to exercise the intellect and look it up. "Teach a man to fish . . . ."
Permalink Reply by Jay Murrell on March 21, 2009 at 12:08
bob: 'Tis a pity, youyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyou use them so often.
Jay
Permalink Reply by Bob on March 21, 2009 at 12:19
I disagree. But, I indeed was duped; I falsely assumed you were genuinely asking a question and wanted me to explain it. Thus, proving the initial point: there are those who are intent on not resolving any issue, but instead, to incite and to inflame. And, that would be you. Having read through the disagreeable blog, it seems I was late to learn this. Now I know. Fool me once . . .
Permalink Reply by J. A. on March 21, 2009 at 11:58
Are you still screwing around?
Permalink Reply by Dorcheated A1 on March 21, 2009 at 12:23
J.A.
The fishing was bad!! oh, well, I got out of moving the yard.
Permalink Reply by Dorcheated A1 on March 22, 2009 at 2:32
Yucka, ducka, doo Mr. Krowe, I just now realized that I spelled it wrong.
I like your sense of humor, you know that! But you'll screw up sooner than later and I'll be waiting
Permalink Reply by J. A. on March 21, 2009 at 15:11
That's okay. I'll bet it beat a day working! Which lake did you fish on?
Permalink Reply by Dorcheated A1 on March 22, 2009 at 0:51
I went up to Millwood Lake and fished behind the spillway.
Permalink Reply by Snake Stewart on March 21, 2009 at 18:59
Sorry Bob,
My response/questions had nothing to do with the extracurricular activity between Mr, Krow and Mr. Murrell. Maybe they have emptied their bladders by now and fallen off to sleep. :-)

I didnt permalink the top of the P.S. part , so I just wrote (quote).

Simply stated, I take issue with your assumption that everyone is a racist.
I will try to be a little clearer from now on so I dont lose you or so you will understand what I "wanted you to take away with".

The two proponents you quoted used either skewed information from a limited source or in the case of Mr. Bonilla-Silva, prints rubish that shows only his lopsided, repulsive view of the world. When he does allow others to answer his questions, he belittles and berates those that have a different view, into wishing they hadnt even attempted to answer.That according to the bi racial man that reviewed the work, bird cage liner you made mention of.

You may be correct about your view of what the word "Racist" used to mean. I am not sure its relevant. Because the current, most often times meant, definition of the word is inflammatory. For you to state that "all racism isnt bad", makes me glad that I didnt watch that episode of Oprah with you. (LOL)

In summary,

1) Everyone, by the present inflammatory definition, is not racist.

2) If you are conservative/republican, it doesnt mean you are in the klan.
Just as being liberal/democratic, doesnt mean you dont have a problem with abortion, a womans right to privacy.

3) You shouldnt use an author with an apparent racist agenda to try to prove everyone else is a racist.
Kinda like asking Hitler for a 10 page essay on the benefits of being a pre WWII Jew.

4) Voting the democratic party line doesnt mean you arent a racist.
Many scholars , outside of Texas Universities, see the welfare system/ socialized leaning society as a hindurance to the people that are supposed to benefit from the system. Others say it is simply a means by which congressional members can hold their seats. If you control their money, you control their vote. Doesnt mean they actually care for the poor.

Sorry I lost ya. I went back and read it to see what was so difficult to understand. Only conclusion I came up with is you didnt want to walk away with anything I said. Thats cool. I aint waking away with any of Mr. Edwardos stuff, and hes a professor at A & M. :-)

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service