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

[justoh]

Yet you can't think of a single plausible alternative. So instead of trying to understand the logic you are going to try to argue fail badly at arguing semantics. How many dimensions need to exist for us to find one where Waggy does not believe that?

one

 

[dank69]

Seems like a guy that speaks fluent first-order logic would say we need at least 4 dimensions before Waggy's synapses can fire.

 

[brycejones]

Why are you guys still arguing when the idiot OP long ago abandoned his own troll thread?

 

[justoh]

Why are you guys still arguing when the idiot OP long ago abandoned his own troll thread?

The argument has little to do with the original poster or post.

Realibrad is responsible for keeping it alive, with his infinite patience. For some reason he expects him to confess, but dank will never break character.

I don't think the OP is capable of trolling. He's just angry and frustrated by something he doesn't understand.

 

[brycejones]

I don't think the OP is capable of trolling. He's just angry and frustrated by something he doesn't understand.

The world?

 

[michal1980]

Why are you guys still arguing when the idiot OP long ago abandoned his own troll thread?

The argument has little to do with the original poster or post.

Realibrad is responsible for keeping it alive, with his infinite patience. For some reason he expects him to confess, but dank will never break character.

I don't think the OP is capable of trolling. He's just angry and frustrated by something he doesn't understand.

please tell me what I don't understand.

That its racist to require teachers to be of a certain race to teach certain topics?

Its hard to respond when the powers that be put you on time out.

 

[justoh]

please tell me what I don't understand.

That its racist to require teachers to be of a certain race to teach certain topics?

Its hard to respond when the powers that be put you on time out.

The world?

The world?

 

[dank69]

please tell me what I don't understand.

That its racist to require teachers to be of a certain race to teach certain topics?

Its hard to respond when the powers that be put you on time out.

No, the part where you say they should go back to where they came from if they want to learn about their history might be construed as racist by some people.

 

[michal1980]

No, the part where you say they should go back to where they came from if they want to learn about their history might be construed as racist by some people.

If they want to enforce their racism, they should leave.

 

[stormkroe]

Holy cow there's a lot of man hours here. It looks pretty simple to me:
Dankster sees a comparison put forth by Waggy and feels (correctly) they are not actually equal.
Dankster thinks he caught a subconscious slip up by Waggy, revealing some deep down, unintentional rascism (American history doesn't have minorities in it).
I think Waggy was saying what he guesses the overt rascists would say if circumstances were changed.
That's it. It's not some huge logic issue that only makes sense north of the 145 IQ line.
Recap: everyone agrees the statements aren't equal.
Not everyone agrees if it's Waggy's personal beliefs or his projection of what the rascists would say.
As qualified by his opening statements, I believe the latter.

 

[werepossum]

Holy cow there's a lot of man hours here. It looks pretty simple to me:
Dankster sees a comparison put forth by Waggy and feels (correctly) they are not actually equal.
Dankster thinks he caught a subconscious slip up by Waggy, revealing some deep down, unintentional rascism (American history doesn't have minorities in it).
I think Waggy was saying what he guesses the overt rascists would say if circumstances were changed.
That's it. It's not some huge logic issue that only makes sense north of the 145 IQ line.
Recap: everyone agrees the statements aren't equal.
Not everyone agrees if it's Waggy's personal beliefs or his projection of what the rascists would say.
As qualified by his opening statements, I believe the latter.

Pretty clear to me that Waggy was pointing out the absurdity of the protesters' point by using symmetry - if one can only teach minority studies by being a minority, then logically one can only teach majority subject having experienced them as a member of the majority.

Then again, according to Emode I'm south of the 145 IQ line so YMMV.

 

[justoh]

Holy cow there's a lot of man hours here. It looks pretty simple to me:
Dankster sees a comparison put forth by Waggy and feels (correctly) they are not actually equal.
Dankster thinks he caught a subconscious slip up by Waggy, revealing some deep down, unintentional rascism (American history doesn't have minorities in it).
I think Waggy was saying what he guesses the overt rascists would say if circumstances were changed.
That's it. It's not some huge logic issue that only makes sense north of the 145 IQ line.
Recap: everyone agrees the statements aren't equal.
Not everyone agrees if it's Waggy's personal beliefs or his projection of what the rascists would say.
As qualified by his opening statements, I believe the latter.

Nope. Dank is arguing that it must be the case that it's what waggy believes/thinks, which isn't true. There's also no real evidence of racism from the op, waggy, or the protestors.

 

[justoh]

Pretty clear to me that Waggy was pointing out the absurdity of the protesters' point by using symmetry - if one can only teach minority studies by being a minority, then logically one can only teach majority subject having experienced them as a member of the majority.

Then again, according to Emode I'm south of the 145 IQ line so YMMV.

More or less.

As you've previously stated, there is something to what the protestors were saying. All of the statements taken together indicate a concern that the typical white white person might not be qualified due to their inability to think critically about their role as the dominant race/culture, which is probably true for many white people. They even commented that they weren't aware of his background before the initial objection, showing that they are aware that he's possibly fine.

Since this is cultural studies and not history, this makes sense. spungo and waggy took it out of context with and tried to show how this kind of thinking would lead to an absurd result by analogy, nonsensically.

It also doesn't make sense to say that we can logically prove what waggy thinks or believes about anything. It doesn't work deductively, and induction is never conclusive.

 

[werepossum]

More or less.

As you've previously stated, there is something to what the protestors were saying. All of the statements taken together indicate a concern that the typical white white person might not be qualified due to their inability to think critically about their role as the dominant race/culture, which is probably true for many white people. They even commented that they weren't aware of his background before the initial objection, showing that they are aware that he's possibly fine.

Since this is cultural studies and not history, this makes sense. spungo and waggy took it out of context with and tried to show how this kind of thinking would lead to an absurd result by analogy, nonsensically.

It also doesn't make sense to say that we can logically prove what waggy thinks or believes about anything. It doesn't work deductively, and induction is never conclusive.

Agreed, on both counts.

 

[michal1980]

More or less.

As you've previously stated, there is something to what the protestors were saying. All of the statements taken together indicate a concern that the typical white white person might not be qualified due to their inability to think critically about their role as the dominant race/culture, which is probably true for many white people. They even commented that they weren't aware of his background before the initial objection, showing that they are aware that he's possibly fine.

Since this is cultural studies and not history, this makes sense. spungo and waggy took it out of context with and tried to show how this kind of thinking would lead to an absurd result by analogy, nonsensically.

It also doesn't make sense to say that we can logically prove what waggy thinks or believes about anything. It doesn't work deductively, and induction is never conclusive.

Why do you keep trying to whitewash these people's racism?

Please tell us what race is qualified to teach "African-American, Latino and Southeast Asian studies"

Do you need 3 teachers? And what African Americans qualify, did they have to grow up in the 60s? 70s? will a teacher born in the 80s going to schools in the 80s,90s, and 2000s qualify? Their experience will be far different.

And would that African American be qualified to teach Latino, or Asian studies?

And now there are 'Latino' teachers, which Latino? Mexican? Central American (can subdivide that further) South American? (and what group from south America they all have different cultures, there are even different languages. etc etc

How about southeast Asia? Another region that has many different groups.

Do we need 80 different teachers in high school to meet this race requirement these people have? And even then how do we ensure these people had the correct experiences growing up to satisfy these racists?

Or is it that these people just don't like whitey? And the school granted them a forum to try to appease their racism.

 

[dank69]

More or less.

As you've previously stated, there is something to what the protestors were saying. All of the statements taken together indicate a concern that the typical white white person might not be qualified due to their inability to think critically about their role as the dominant race/culture, which is probably true for many white people. They even commented that they weren't aware of his background before the initial objection, showing that they are aware that he's possibly fine.

Since this is cultural studies and not history, this makes sense. spungo and waggy took it out of context with and tried to show how this kind of thinking would lead to an absurd result by analogy, nonsensically.

It also doesn't make sense to say that we can logically prove what waggy thinks or believes about anything. It doesn't work deductively, and induction is never conclusive.

That's where you are wrong, again. The procedure, the only procedure, for extending logic is to find equivalent statements. Trying to extend logic with a statement that you don't think is equivalent makes zero sense. It does not take an IQ of 145 to understand this very basic concept. I use the word must because there is no other explanation, and your stupid, arrogant ass still does not get it.

 

[justoh]

Why do you keep trying to whitewash these people's racism?

.

That's racist

 

[TerryMathews]

That's where you are wrong, again. The procedure, the only procedure, for extending logic is to find equivalent statements.

Reductio ad absurdum

 

[justoh]

That's where you are wrong, again. The procedure, the only procedure, for extending logic is to find equivalent statements. Trying to extend logic with a statement that you don't think is equivalent makes zero sense. It does not take an IQ of 145 to understand this very basic concept. I use the word must because there is no other explanation, and your stupid, arrogant ass still does not get it.

No

 

[justoh]

No, the part where you say they should go back to where they came from if they want to learn about their history might be construed as racist by some people.

Yeah. By people as dumb as the op, maybe. At least you didn't argue that it must be construed as such. Small progress

 

[dank69]

Reductio ad absurdum

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[dank69]

No

What a well thought out and lucid rebuttal.

 

[dank69]

Yeah. By people as dumb as the op, maybe. At least you didn't argue that it must be construed as such. Small progress

Yes I understand there are times where the word must is appropriate and times when the word is not appropriate. You do not understand this.

 

[justoh]

Yes I understand there are times where the word must is appropriate and times when the word is not appropriate. You do not understand this.

More progress! Now you just need to understand when logic dictates that something must be the case. Because that was the claim you made. It's different, for example, to me saying that you must be trolling, because now i'm not so sure anymore. There's the common parlance vs logic

 

[dank69]

More progress! Now you just need to understand when logic dictates that something must be the case. Because that was the claim you made. It's different, for example, to me saying that you must be trolling, because now i'm not so sure anymore. There's the common parlance vs logic

How about you channel your arrogance into coming up with one plausible alternative like I have asked multiple times? Just one, if you can manage.