Is this a Valid Definition of Critical Race Theory?

[madman]

Did the OP say it was being taught in public schools? No. Did I say it was being taught in public schools? No. Whether or not it is being taught in public schools is not relevant. This is just a strawman you've created to avoid answering the questions. Again.

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a fa

then what is the ****ing arguement with CRT? I mean, ultimately, boiling it all down, you cons are pissed that "it's being taught in public schools," when in fact, it isn't.

 

[natman]

then what is the ****ing arguement with CRT? I mean, ultimately, boiling it all down, you cons are pissed that "it's being taught in public schools," when in fact, it isn't.

You're making up an argument and then acting as if I'd said it. How about just replying to the original points? Here, I'll repeat them once more for your convenience:

"1. Critical Race Theory is an Ideology started in academia in the 1970's that says racism exists everywhere - in every person and system - and the job of the critical theorist is to assess HOW (not if) racism occurred in any circumstance. Racism is always ASSUMED to have occurred.

2. Another way to think of critical race theory is this: it's the opposite of what Martin Luther King preached. It is the idea that we should judge people on the basis of their race, that race is the only thing that matters about them, not the content of their character."

Do you think these are accurate and why?

 

[madman]

You're making up an argument and then acting as if I'd said it. How about just replying to the original points? Here, I'll repeat them once more for your convenience:

"1. Critical Race Theory is an Ideology started in academia in the 1970's that says racism exists everywhere - in every person and system - and the job of the critical theorist is to assess HOW (not if) racism occurred in any circumstance. Racism is always ASSUMED to have occurred.

2. Another way to think of critical race theory is this: it's the opposite of what Martin Luther King preached. It is the idea that we should judge people on the basis of their race, that race is the only thing that matters about them, not the content of their character."

Do you think these are accurate and why?

I'd rather not argument semantics, but why do you feel that CRT is bad when it's not even being taught?


But, I'll humor you:

Humans are taught racism. Some people exhibit blatantly open racists remarks, some are more subtle (aka dog whistles), some just keep their mouths shut, some people are simply just kind people and do not speak ill of others. Is it displayed everywhere? You'll have to define "everywhere."

This is a philosophical argument, but why IS IT? why is it even a political topic today?

 

[The Work Outing]

take it up with the moderators. Personal attacks are against the rules. attacking stupid posts as lies or being stupid, I don't believe is a violation.

I do not care what you believe, old man.
Read the description.

Ad Hominem: When People Use Personal Attacks in Arguments – Effectiviology

effectiviology.com

Insulting every post a person ever made on this side IS an ad hominem.
Heck...you insult people around here in your posts like it is a bodily function.
All of your posts seem to encompass rage and bile.

Anyway...you have been schooled.
No charge.

BTW...you claim to be a lawyer and you do not know what 'ad hominem' means?
Okaaaaaaay.

Have a nice day, old man.

 

[HangLow]

***********

************​