White? Dont teach here. Op Updated to address false 'racist' labal

[realibrad]

why don't you just ask waggy directly? why is this so important to you that you absolutely have to be right? it seems a bit childish going about it this way.

Because that is not nearly as fun as this has been. Its pushing me to better myself.

 

[dank69]

why don't you just ask waggy directly? why is this so important to you that you absolutely have to be right? it seems a bit childish going about it this way.

Well, primarily because Waggy isn't exactly the most honest poster on this board. Secondly, as I have mentioned, I don't think he even knew the logic required to make that post.

Why is it important to me? Because I like to learn new things and I like it when others learn new things.

 

[dphantom]

Well, primarily because Waggy isn't exactly the most honest poster on this board

Hmm, I have not noticed that. Would be careful about assuming something about others you have no knowledge of

Secondly, as I have mentioned, I don't think he even knew the logic required to make that post.

so actually the main purpose is to prove that you understand logic better than waggy or anyone else here

 

[dank69]

No, we did not get confused, we disagreed. You are starting to get to some Moonbeam level stuff here.

You believe Waggy's comment was to mean that Blacks could not teach "American" history is the inverse of whites cannot teach black history. You had to infer this because that is not explicitly said. So lets just focus on this already.

No. I do not believe that they are inverse. I believe they are not equal. This is why we have to do this the hard way, because you still don't understand what I am saying. I say 2 statements are not equal and you turn around and say I think they are the inverse. This is a failure of logic.

Look back at post 201 where I answer your question of "Do I believe A or B?" I tell you A, and in post 208 you are back to telling me I am wrong for thinking B.

 

[dank69]

Hmm, I have not noticed that. Would be careful about assuming something about others you have no knowledge of

Honest might not be the best choice of words, as it implies intent. It's just harder for conservatives to admit when their closely held beliefs are wrong.

so actually the main purpose is to prove that you understand logic better than waggy or anyone else here

No, there are plenty of people here who understand logic. This exercise is for me as much as it is for anyone else.

 

[realibrad]

No. I do not believe that they are inverse. I believe they are not equal. This is why we have to do this the hard way, because you still don't understand what I am saying. I say 2 statements are not equal and you turn around and say I think they are the inverse. This is a failure of logic.

Look back at post 201 where I answer your question of "Do I believe A or B?" I tell you A, and in post 208 you are back to telling me I am wrong for thinking B.

And that is where you are confusing people.

I asked if you believe waggy believes "whites can't teach African studies is the same as blacks can't teach American History"

and you said yes.

Yes/No?

 

[justoh]

I tried that several times and every single time you guys got confused. Sorry it has to be this way. It is sad that it has to take so many posts just to come to a consensus on what Waggy was trying to communicate with that post. It seems relatively straightforward to me but I can't even get you guys to commit to a simple answer about that. We could have moved on much faster, but you are making up logical fallacies and he is afraid if he just answers honestly I am going to trick him or something.

Before it was about what he must believe in order to have made the statement. Now it's about what he was trying to communicate?

 

[justoh]

So you have the ability to determine what points he was trying to communicate with that post? (Yes/No)

Let's go with Yes. I have the ability to determine what people try to communicate.

 

[dank69]

My neighborhood was America to me.

I forgot to respond to this post. It's funny to me that you think growing up in a predominantly non-white neighborhood means you know what it is like to be an actual minority, as if not looking like most people around you is the only issue actual minorities have to deal with.

 

[dank69]

Before it was about what he must believe in order to have made the statement. Now it's about what he was trying to communicate?

Don't worry, we will get to that point eventually.

Let's go with Yes. I have the ability to determine what people try to communicate.

Okay. It seems to me that the major theme of Waggy's post was to communicate that he agreed with Spungo's extension of the protesters' logic, to communicate another resulting example that would occur if we were to extend the protesters logic even further, and to communicate that these extensions result in outcomes so stupid that it disproves the protesters' logic so conclusively that sarcastic mocking is in order. Would you agree that this seems to be the theme of his post? (Yes/No)

 

[dank69]

And that is where you are confusing people.

I asked if you believe waggy believes "whites can't teach African studies is the same as blacks can't teach American History"

and you said yes.

Yes/No?

Yes. I said Yes, Waggy believes the two statements are the same. You then took that to mean that I think Waggy thinks the two statements are correct, which is not what I said or believe. For some reason, you don't understand the difference between equal and correct. In fact, option B was that Waggy thinks one of the statements is correct, I specifically chose the other option and you still took that to mean I was choosing option B. Hopefully you can understand my frustration at that point.

 

[justoh]

Don't worry, we will get to that point eventually.

Okay. It seems to me that the major theme of Waggy's post was to communicate that he agreed with Spungo's extension of the protesters' logic, to communicate another resulting example that would occur if we were to extend the protesters logic even further, and to communicate that these extensions result in outcomes so stupid that it disproves the protesters' logic so conclusively that sarcastic mocking is in order. Would you agree that this seems to be the theme of his post? (Yes/No)

Okay. Let's go with Yes. Don't like some of that disprove and conclusively language.

 

[realibrad]

Don't worry, we will get to that point eventually.

Okay. It seems to me that the major theme of Waggy's post was to communicate that he agreed with Spungo's extension of the protesters' logic, to communicate another resulting example that would occur if we were to extend the protesters logic even further, and to communicate that these extensions result in outcomes so stupid that it disproves the protesters' logic so conclusively that sarcastic mocking is in order. Would you agree that this seems to be the theme of his post? (Yes/No)

Sort of. Disproves is not the right word. It taking the conclusion of the protester and showing what it would lead too. Only the reader would decide if it disproves. The intent was to show a conclusion that may not have been understood by the protester.

 

[dank69]

Okay. Let's go with Yes. Don't like some of that disprove and conclusively language.

Well lets explore that then. I inferred those things, so they are certainly open to interpretation. I think the sarcasm is clear, but some might not recognize it. Sarcasm isn't always obvious in written form but this seems like a clear cut case. In fact, I believe that everything in that post was sarcastic except for "exactly." The next sentence, to me, was Waggy sarcastically saying if what the protesters are saying were true then we'd have to fire black history teachers. This statement was only mild sarcasm though and I think that sarcasm was intended to communicate that the protesters have not thought their logic through.

The last two statements though are absolutely dripping with sarcasm, IMO. Would you agree that the last two statements are obvious sarcasm? (Yes/No)

 

[realibrad]

..." The next sentence, to me, was Waggy sarcastically saying if what the protesters are saying were true then we'd have to fire black history teachers. This statement was only mild sarcasm though and I think that sarcasm was intended to communicate that the protesters have not thought their logic through.

The last two statements though are absolutely dripping with sarcasm, IMO. Would you agree that the last two statements are obvious sarcasm? (Yes/No)

He said you would have to fire black history teacher not teaching history that they had direct experience with. Thats a very important part.

 

[justoh]

Well lets explore that then. I inferred those things, so they are certainly open to interpretation. I think the sarcasm is clear, but some might not recognize it. Sarcasm isn't always obvious in written form but this seems like a clear cut case. In fact, I believe that everything in that post was sarcastic except for "exactly." The next sentence, to me, was Waggy sarcastically saying if what the protesters are saying were true then we'd have to fire black history teachers. This statement was only mild sarcasm though and I think that sarcasm was intended to communicate that the protesters have not thought their logic through.

The last two statements though are absolutely dripping with sarcasm, IMO. Would you agree that the last two statements are obvious sarcasm? (Yes/No)

Sure. Yes. Roughly how many more questions though?

 

[dank69]

Sure. Yes. Roughly how many more questions though?

I have no idea. It depends completely on your answers.

So we agree he was being sarcastic. I believe the target of his sarcasm was Karen. Would you agree? (Yes/No)

 

[justoh]

I have no idea. It depends completely on your answers.

So we agree he was being sarcastic. I believe the target of his sarcasm was Karen. Would you agree? (Yes/No)

Yes. Well maybe it's possible to ask more than one at a time. Or combine the closely related questions. The last two could have been combined, no?

 

[dank69]

He said you would have to fire black history teacher not teaching history that they had direct experience with. Thats a very important part.

He did not say that. You inferred that, as did I. What he actually said was that we would have to fire all black history teachers except for African studies. You keep skipping ahead though. Patience is a virtue.

 

[dank69]

Yes. Well maybe it's possible to ask more than one at a time. Or combine the closely related questions. The last two could have been combined, no?

No, I am sorry, but we are still experiencing confusion even at this level. For example, we have to explore why I think disprove was the proper word to use because you and Realibrad do not agree with it yet.

Moving on, we have established that Waggy was mocking Karen with his sarcasm. I believe people mock concepts we think are incorrect. I do not believe we mock concepts we think are correct. Would you agree? (Yes/No)

 

[realibrad]

He did not say that. You inferred that, as did I. What he actually said was that we would have to fire all black history teachers except for African studies. You keep skipping ahead though. Patience is a virtue.

You are dragging this out, because in my belief, you are looking for things to support your belief.

Spungo
"On the flip side, Karen Crozier is implicitly saying that black teachers are incapable of teaching European history"

That statement was to show that if whites cannot teach black history, then blacks cannot teach white history. European history being almost completely white, would not be experienced by a black person, and thus the black person would be unable to teach it as.

Waggys response was a continuation of this idea. So when he said "exactly. so i guess they should fire every black history teacher (except for African-American, Latino and Southeast Asian studies)" he was talking about black teachers who were currently teaching non black history. The reason for this, is to show that if the protesters were to get their way, you would end up firing a lot of good black history teachers over a dumb idea, that only first hand experience allows one to effectively teach all the parts of history.

 

[justoh]

No, I am sorry, but we are still experiencing confusion even at this level. For example, we have to explore why I think disprove was the proper word to use because you and Realibrad do not agree with it yet.

Moving on, we have established that Waggy was mocking Karen with his sarcasm. I believe people mock concepts we think are incorrect. I do not believe we mock concepts we think are correct. Would you agree? (Yes/No)

I'll go with Yes to mocking concepts we disagree with.

 

[dank69]

You are dragging this out, because in my belief, you are looking for things to support your belief.

Spungo
"On the flip side, Karen Crozier is implicitly saying that black teachers are incapable of teaching European history"

That statement was to show that if whites cannot teach black history, then blacks cannot teach white history. European history being almost completely white, would not be experienced by a black person, and thus the black person would be unable to teach it as.

Waggys response was a continuation of this idea. So when he said "exactly. so i guess they should fire every black history teacher (except for African-American, Latino and Southeast Asian studies)" he was talking about black teachers who were currently teaching non black history. The reason for this, is to show that if the protesters were to get their way, you would end up firing a lot of good black history teachers over a dumb idea, that only first hand experience allows one to effectively teach all the parts of history.

All of a sudden, you know exactly what Waggy was thinking. Interesting. You are only making my case for me, you just don't know it.

 

[dank69]

I'll go with Yes to mocking concepts we disagree with.

I didn't ask you if we mock things we disagree with. I asked you if we mock things we think are correct.

 

[justoh]

I didn't ask you if we mock things we disagree with. I asked you if we mock things we think are correct.

Yes