- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,817
- Reaction score
- 10,914
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
From your reference:
LOL....discriminating , wanting to deny black voting, is by definition "denying universal suffrage".Buckley provides an argument for denying universal suffrage
It's truly amazing how denying "universal suffrage" is exactly the same as denying blacks suffrage--without the need for any argument whatsoever.
I've shown how you manipulated the quotation by leaving out relevant material that shows that "advanced race" refers directly and only to the white culture of the time.
I'm aware of the struggle, but that is not the argument, the argument still is whether Buckley's article is racist, if his argument that denying blacks the vote is racist.Edit to add
I recommend you read this. It may help dispel your misapprehensions about the limitations on black voting in the 1950s South.
From your reference:
a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
LOL....discriminating , wanting to deny black voting, is by definition "denying universal suffrage".
How much more absurd can you get?
We will see....
Further:
Definition of culture
1 a : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (such as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time popular culture Southern culture
Further still, you already conceded that Buckley equated culture to race:
I'm aware of the struggle, but that is not the argument, the argument still is whether Buckley's article is racist, if his argument that denying blacks the vote is racist.
LOL....FFS! That is from YOUR reference for....wait for it...the definition of..."Race".Are we pretending that the above represents the definition of "culture" or what?
You mean are some "races" better than others? Why don't you answer your own question?Are some shared interests, habits or characteristics better than others (your latest cue to dodge)?
You have yourself so backwards, so confused....I'll write this slowly for you....denying a minority group the vote IS denying universal suffrage.Are you deliberately missing the point that denying universal suffrage is not by definition denying black voting?
If a minority group within a population is denied the vote, how can you claim that "universal suffrage exists? This is such a stupid, illogical argument. GOOD FRIGGING GRIEF!There are many ways to prevent universal suffrage that do not involve preventing blacks from voting.
I'll concede that these postings from you are becoming even more ridiculous.Please concede the point so that I can start to assume that you understand it.
Except for the part, where, you know, Buckley argues for blacks not voting....because that is discriminatory....and racist.And once you understand it, maybe you'll begin to see that supporting something less than universal suffrage is not (contrary to what you appeared to claim earlier) a demonstration of racism against blacks.
Says the guy who just argued that denying a group the vote is not denying universal suffrage.Your history of error pretty much precludes you from serving as a judge of absurdity.
You are still missing that the first definition above WAS FOR "RACE"....and that this is for "CULTURE"....and they are from the source YOU USED!Huh. And I thought you were saying it is "shared interests, habits, or characteristics" that constitute race. What am I missing? Other than your equivocation, that is?
As I just showed, your own source, Webster, does make the "equivocation", but more importantly, BUCKLEY made the "equivocation"...and that is all that matters when we are debating WHAT HE SAID....and to put the cherry on top, I have you RECOGNIZING that Buckley said it, you understand he made that equivocation.I already pointed out your mistake. I suppose it's easy to do so again, hoping for a better result from you next time.
Using "advanced race" to refer to culture instead of genetics (look at definitions of "race" that you skipped over while cherry picking) is not equating culture to race. It is picking out something held generally in common (culture; a "unifying characteristic") and referring to it by the term "white race." It doesn't make the terms interchangeable. That path (and others) leads to the fallacy of equivocation, of which you have already been guilty multiple times.
None of this matters, since it has no bearing on what I am supposed to "prove", it is simply your wondering about subjects beyond the scope of the point at hand. This is commonly called a diversion, and folks in these parts do it most often when they lost the point.One can lead a horse to water ...
As I said, I shared that URL with you so that you could see what types of limitations were placed on voting in the South during the time when Buckley wrote.
There was a poll tax. Did that prevent all blacks from voting? Did it prevent whites from voting?
There was a literacy test. Did that prevent all blacks from voting? Did it prevent whites from voting?
There was also intimidation of black voters, but Buckley's column appears to disparage such tactics with his admonishment that the South should seek to achieve equality of culture for the races*.
*Which, if Buckley equated culture with race makes it appear that he wanted the races to interbreed to the point where the races were indistinguishable?
At least 8 white nationalists running for federal office
MSNBC’s Morgan Radford spoke with white nationalists who are running for federal office this year on the Republican ticket. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, at least eight white nationalists are running, more than ever before.
=============================================
Tiki torch sales will be booming come November. American Nazi Party, Holocaust deniers, Trump fans. One big happy party.
Yes alot of white people are fed up with Diversity and do not think its a strength. For example look at Detroit and Baltimore.
They are ruined.
I agree with them.
LOL....FFS! That is from YOUR reference for....wait for it...the definition of..."Race".
You mean are some "races" better than others? Why don't you answer your own question?
You have yourself so backwards, so confused
....I'll write this slowly for you....denying a minority group the vote IS denying universal suffrage.
If a minority group within a population is denied the vote, how can you claim that "universal suffrage exists? This is such a stupid, illogical argument.
GOOD FRIGGING GRIEF! I'll concede that these postings from you are becoming even more ridiculous.
Except for the part, where, you know, Buckley argues for blacks not voting....because that is discriminatory....and racist.
Says the guy who just argued that denying a group the vote is not denying universal suffrage.
You are still missing that the first definition above WAS FOR "RACE"....and that this is for "CULTURE"....and they are from the source YOU USED!
As I just showed, your own source, Webster, does make the "equivocation",
but more importantly, BUCKLEY made the "equivocation"...and that is all that matters when we are debating WHAT HE SAID....and to put the cherry on top, I have you RECOGNIZING that Buckley said it, you understand he made that equivocation.
None of this matters, since it has no bearing on what I am supposed to "prove", it is simply your wondering about subjects beyond the scope of the point at hand. This is commonly called a diversion, and folks in these parts do it most often when they lost the point.
I did answer the question.Obviously. So why aren't you answering the question? Out of respect for your own tradition?
Who the **** cares, you did not write the article we are debating.If you will recall, I specifically told you that I do not equate race with culture.
Well see, you DO have something in common with Buckley, I have no doubt there is a lot more to it.Yes, some cultures are better than others. It's an easy question to answer. Except for you. For you, answering the question must be avoided at all costs.
You keep forgetting who and what is the subject of the debate.How many times have you been asked now, and you have declined to answer? Six? Seven? More?
Just because you change the order of the comparison does not make your argument valid, denying a minority a vote is NOT universal suffrage. I have no idea why this is so troublesome for a journalism grad.Confused about what? Or does custom dictate that you *always* argue by insisting on your conclusion instead of presenting premises that logically imply the conclusion?Sure, in the same sense that Coors is beer. But that doesn't mean that beer is Coors, does it (your cue to dodge again, I suppose)? You don't get to argue that beer is Coors just because Coors is beer. Got it?
It isn't a matter of opinion:Sure. But who's making that argument, in your opinion?
You supported it"You can't be serious.I can't say I'm surprised that you're repeating your conclusion yet again without the benefit of a supporting argument.
You are still under the impression that your nonsensical word order argument is the subject of the debate. News Flash....it is not.LOL. I didn't say that. I said that denying universal suffrage is not denying black people the vote. Same as beer is not Coors. Do you get it yet?
Actually, I don't have to answer any of your tangents about what your definitions are, you are not nor are your questions the subject of the debate.You're still routinely dodging questions and missing the point. I know where the definitions come from. Stop with the red herring fallacies and answer the questions.
No, you already acknowledged that Buckley equated culture with race:With your argument in its present state, Buckley stands accused of favoring white culture over black culture, and you've given this the name "racism" because "race" can mean a group holding certain things in common (such as culture). You also assert that this "racism" of Buckley's is an extremist position, implying that it is out of the mainstream to believe that some cultures are better than others. And for some reason(!) you will not answer whether you believe that some cultures are better than others.
I did answer the question.
Who the **** cares, you did not write the article we are debating.
Well see, you DO have something in common with Buckley, I have no doubt there is a lot more to it.
It isn't a matter of opinion:
"Denying universal suffrage isn't the same as denying blacks the vote."
You supported it"
"Buckley provides an argument for denying universal suffrage".
You are still under the impression that your nonsensical word order argument is the subject of the debate. News Flash....it is not.
Actually, I don't have to answer any of your tangents about what your definitions are, you are not nor are your questions the subject of the debate.
No, you already acknowledged that Buckley equated culture with race:
I've shown how you manipulated the quotation by leaving out relevant material that shows that "advanced race" refers directly and only to the white culture of the time.
If the advanced race is white, then Buckley is clearly making a racist argument.
It really is not that difficult.
This is you not being able to correctly quote the article, let alone any of the points I have made, he equated the "advanced race" with "white culture". There is no dancing around this point, you acknowledged it before, and yet suddenly, the next day, you cannot accurately recall even this simple point.I'll correct you on that yet again: Buckley used "white race" to refer to white culture (Coors is beer). He was not using "white culture" to refer to race (beer is Coors).[/url]
This is you not being able to correctly quote the article, let alone any of the points I have made, he equated the "advanced race" with "white culture".
There is no dancing around this point, you acknowledged it before, and yet suddenly, the next day, you cannot accurately recall even this simple point.
It is not minor, it is the central comment he made that confirms whether what he wrote was racist, and again, you recognized it earlier:This is you trying to float your argument on a very minor debate point. Fine. "advanced race" is "Coors" instead of "white race" even though in terms of Buckley's article he means the white culture is the advance culture....And there you are mixing up two different points as though they're the same thing.
If the white race is the advanced race, then WFBJr was writing a racist article.I've shown how you manipulated the quotation by leaving out relevant material that shows that "advanced race" refers directly and only to the white culture of the time.
It is not minor, it is the central comment he made that confirms whether what he wrote was racist,
and again, you recognized it earlier:
If the white race is the advanced race, then WFBJr was writing a racist article.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?