• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democratic Party Should Pay Reparations

Firstly, an apology for misinformation, as I seem to be doing a whole lot better this time after the 21-day taking of the chemo. So I'm trying to see if I can get my fingers to do as brain commands and it comes out sensible. For now, just this last paragraph of your last post, I think.
Cancer is no fun. My first wife died of triple-negative breast cancer (she was 34 years old), as did my mom (who lived to the much riper age of 81). I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. I hope you're able to get through it, and if not: I don't spend much time talking about my own life and especially my mystical pursuits, but I know from personal experience that death is not the end.

I suppose I was referring to the Democratic Party members, as I think I had the idea you were sort of at their defense table on this one. But I probably could have done better explaining that right off. Well, using a courtroom analogy isn't so smart, is it? Maybe the brain isn't working quite as it should. Well, I also had a sort of personal surprise bordering on shock a few hours ago and that is still sitting at the front of my brain and clogging up my brain's CPU. Seems some younger folks don't care for gardens with lots of trees. A plot of land was simply stripped bare. I wasn't told it would happen. When you start handing responsibility to others I suppose those surprises will happen. And I just went way off-topic didn't I? Sorry about that. Still I'm surprised I am doing not so bad at present. Hope it lasts until the next cycle starts. What a battle this cancer stuff is.
I greatly dislike the Democrats...I just dislike the Republicans a little worse, for the most part. I think the political and economic elites in this country have invested in creating a sharp ideological divide (much the way the Byzantine aristocracy and emperors did between the Blues and the Greens in their empire) so that the common people will be too distracted while they rob and rape us blind. A few politicians on either side don't play ball (more among the Dems than the Reps--but it's still only a few), but for the most part, they're all a bunch of lying and thieving cowards.
 
You didn't correct him.

You ran the usual Democrats bs. All the hatred, bigotry and crimes against humanity that was the standard Democrat way of life is now the what Republican's are all about. Plus the Democrats are now good people.

You didn't straighten anyone out with that lie.

I corrected him. You are showing the typical brainwashed condition of modern Republicans.

As I said, the center of racism in the country has always been the southern states. They were Democratic for a century after the civil war.

You call those southern states 'hatred, bigotry and crimes against humanity', but you lie that it was about the Democratic Party, not the truth about it being centered in the south.

Even the south was somewhat reduced over time in those things - they didn't keep fighting for slavery that century, instead settling for a lesser discrimination including things like segregation, housing covenants, job discrimination, lynching, and so on, single-mindedly those states opposed civil rights for black people.

Another thing you don't seem to get is that while the rest of the country was less racist, both parties were still pretty racist nationally. There was pretty broad acceptance of a lot of discrimination. Civil rights was not a winning political issue anywhere. It's why black people were split between the parties, with MLK Sr. initially supporting Nixon over JFK.

You post a useless statement about Democrats being 'good people' showing the brainwashing that they aren't. That's not a sensible political argument, but yes, Democrats today are generally much 'better people', much more supporting good values, civil rights, equality, etc. than the other side. Truth hurts.
 
2. The fallacy of equivocation occurs when, in the course of an argument, an important term (predicate, proper name, sometimes a variable though special conditions obtain with those) changes its meaning from either one premise to another, or from premises to conclusions

Do you recognize the name Sir Humphrey Appleby?
 
Do you have any facts to support what you're saying?

It would take a book, but let's take an example. Just this week, Arkansas Republicans announced they will try to remove requirements for desegregation in schools - an issue settled since the 50's and 60's when troops had to be sent to the state to enforce the law.
 
Word salad. Are you Kamala Harris?

Harris isn't especially known for 'word salad'. Saying that suggests some blind partisanship - much better examples would be trump, Palin, and others.

Is English your first language? What is a species of the fallacy of equivocation mean exactly?

He wrote that in a somewhat more advanced, opaque manner, but his reply to this rightly points out it's his English that's more correct than yours.
 

species​

noun​
1 a : kind, sort​
In logic, equivocation ("calling two different things by the same name") is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses within an argument.[1][2]​


Fairly obviously, "a species of the fallacy of equivocation" is a kind of equivocation, fallaciously using the same term in different senses. I don't exactly agree with @ashurbanipal's assessment, but it's pretty clear English for anyone with a broad vocabulary. Less well-read people might be forgiven for thinking that the word 'species' has only a biological meaning. Your question "What is a species of the fallacy of equivocation mean exactly?" also isn't very good grammar - you presumably meant what does it mean - possibly a mistake better avoided when accusing others of 'word salads' and questioning their Englishing proficiency.
Ok. What does it mean then?
 
Lo
Harris isn't especially known for 'word salad'. Saying that suggests some blind partisanship - much better examples would be trump, Palin, and others.



He wrote that in a somewhat more advanced, opaque manner, but his reply to this rightly points out it's his English that's more correct than yours

😂 Okay Bernie. Harris is a word salad in the flesh.
 
Last edited:
Harris isn't especially known for 'word salad'. Saying that suggests some blind partisanship - much better examples would be trump, Palin, and others.



He wrote that in a somewhat more advanced, opaque manner, but his reply to this rightly points out it's his English that's more correct than yours.
If one expects to "read English" all of the time, one ought not peruse the Internet (and especially not "discussion boards") for large portions of their day. If one does that, one soon learns that much of the content on the Internet is NOT "in English", but rather that it is "in American" AND that a large portion of the part that is "in American" is actually at a level of literacy that would not allow a child to graduate from Grade 6 back in the 1960s.

Needless to say, the actual level of verifiable factual content on the Internet falls slightly below the level of literacy of the Internet users.

In short, either learn to understand what the illiteratti write or move to some other form of "social interaction" (such as actually talking, face to face, with actual people).
 
Yes.


1. I think you mean "What does 'a species of the fallacy of equivocation' mean exactly?" (where the bolded should have been put in quotes). Apparently, English is not your first language, because your question is meaningless as written. I'm going to assume you mean the one I corrected to, just previously.

2. The fallacy of equivocation occurs when, in the course of an argument, an important term (predicate, proper name, sometimes a variable though special conditions obtain with those) changes its meaning from either one premise to another, or from premises to conclusions (sometimes philosophers argue over whether or not relational properties always count in accounting for meaning-change). The arguer then claims that whatever is true of the term in the premise/premises implies that the other propositions (other premises/conclusions) state something true of the term that has changed meaning.

Example:

P1: Andrew is such a cowardly guy--he's a chicken.
P2: Chicken tastes good and is morally permissible to eat.
C1: Andrew tastes good and it is morally permissible to eat him.

Obviously, this argument is invalid.

A species of anything is just a specific instance or kind of that thing. A species of the fallacy of equivocation is a specific instance or kind of the above-defined fallacy.

Feel free to look up every single word in each of my posts, including this one, in the Oxford English Dictionary if you need help verifying that I am writing in plain English. Run my prose through chatGPT to check the grammar if you would like.
I stand corrected and humbled. My apologies. The truth is I still don’t understand very well. Bye
 
You will notice that it is only Democrats who are into "identity politics" where superficial skin color matters more to them than the content of someone's character. The Democratic Party has always been the party of bigots since their inception in 1828. Nothing has changed.
Except the southern strategy.

Republicans embraced racism to win elections.
 
I stand corrected and humbled. My apologies. The truth is I still don’t understand very well. Bye
I accept your apology, though I would not say that you need to be humbled (except in the sense that all of us, including me, should always try to be more humble--and to be clear, I know that I am not a humble person). Logic isn't an easy topic, though I do wish more people studied it and had some knowledge of it.

I'll say this for myself: I don't ever post something without having given it a lot of thought and research. That doesn't mean I'm always right; I make mistakes same as the next guy. If you respond to one of my posts again, and don't get it, ask me to explain and I'll likely respond in a kinder tone.
 
Except the southern strategy.

Republicans embraced racism to win elections.
The Southern Manifesto was the Dixiecrat's declaration of principles. Signed in 1956, and the table on which that Southern Manifesto was signed was given to Dixiecrat Senator Biden by his mentor, Dixiecrat Senator John Stennis, became his "most prized possession" according to Dixiecrat President Biden.

The Southern Strategy that Nixon employed was to oust the Dixiecrat bigots and replace them with Republicans. Republicans rejected the Democrat bigots by replacing them, they didn't embrace them. It began during the 1968 election and bore results by the 1972 election. That is when Republicans like Lamar Alexander and Newt Gingrich were elected, replacing the Dixiecrat bigots. Unfortunately, it was not entirely successful. Dixiecrat Governor Wallace remained Governor of Arkansas until 1987.
 

species​

noun​
1 a : kind, sort​
In logic, equivocation ("calling two different things by the same name") is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses within an argument.[1][2]​


Fairly obviously, "a species of the fallacy of equivocation" is a kind of equivocation, fallaciously using the same term in different senses. I don't exactly agree with @ashurbanipal's assessment, but it's pretty clear English for anyone with a broad vocabulary. Less well-read people might be forgiven for thinking that the word 'species' has only a biological meaning. Your question "What is a species of the fallacy of equivocation mean exactly?" also isn't very good grammar - you presumably meant what does it mean - possibly a mistake better avoided when accusing others of 'word salads' and questioning their Englishing proficiency.
Interestingly specie used to refer to a type of coin.
 
Interestingly specie used to refer to a type of coin.
You might want to check that one a bit more closely since "specie" STILL refers to ALL types of "coin" (with "coin" referring to actual money rather than currency).

Not only that, but it can also refer to "the thing itself" as in "The Plaintiff will be content to receive recompense for the 40 pounds of nails that the Defendant did not deliver, if the Defendant will deliver up the same in specie." (i.e. "If the Defendant delivers 40# of nails the Plaintiff will be happy.")
 
It would take a book, but let's take an example. Just this week, Arkansas Republicans announced they will try to remove requirements for desegregation in schools - an issue settled since the 50's and 60's when troops had to be sent to the state to enforce the law.
The Republicans say the Arkansas laws are outdated. The current law in Arkansas calls for parents to have the choice when it comes to what school their children will attend. In some counties desegregation laws get in the way of parents choice. The new law gives the choice to everyone regardless of race.

The left ignores the facts. Can you tell us what is racist about what the Arkansas Republicans are doing?

What else do you got that makes Republicans the filthy, racist party the Democrats were for 100+ years.
 
I'm going to try and summarize what seems to be a consensus within those that support the Democratic Party method of operation. I think 'method of operation' is much broader than 'agenda'.

I want to return to the 'Then / Now' theme I introduced at an early point in this thread. Many seem to agree there was an element of extreme racism within the Democratic Party up to about 1939, using that good idea of a starting point about Mrs. Roosevelt one of our community members suggested. That'll be fine by me, though it will appear to many on the other side of the aisle as too early. But "Then" (before 1939 = "Then") there was that element of extreme racism within the party.

After that, we are now informed by Democratic Party supporters the Democratic Party is reformed and runs a non-racist agenda; non-racist if you are a supporter of the Democratic Party. But the non-racist agenda is then turned around to try to establish that "Now" it is the Republican Party that has the blame for race relations troubles of the last 50 to ? years. I focus on that 50 years because that was used by one of our community members.

When I contend the Democratic Party should be held accountable now for their past actions we have a number of community members go into this thing about it is not about the party itself, but about the southern states. We can't bind the two together it seems we are being asked to accept. That is an issue I have not yet focused much study on.

The other retort to any responsibility the Democratic Party might have had in the past for race relations troubles in the United States is the "Then / Now" hallway. Now the Democratic Party is a changed group of people. In fact, not even the same people. As the Democratic Party has reversed its stance on that issue they should not be held responsible for the earlier stance of the Democratic Party. The "Then / Now" hallway has the first door marked 'Then' and behind that door is the nasty stuff. Down the hallway a bit is the 'Now' door and behind that door is the we-are-so-kind stuff.

I do not agree with that idea 'we are a changed group' stance as a shield and I provided examples when so many times all sorts of apologies have been made to aggrieved groups even decades after a given situation has been reversed. The apologies are being made by governments and organizations that have also transformed themselves into cool/kind folks. "We ain't like that no more." being the common refrain, but stated in more diplomatic and official styles. Same stance many are making here about the Democratic Party. It has changed. It is now the opposite of that old nasty style.

I then stated that I would reverse my thoughts on reparations being paid if the Democratic Party issued an official apology for past deeds, but I believe even that idea is not acceptable to many that have voiced their opinions in this thread. Rationale offered for that stance runs quite the gauntlet of ideas. But the key one is that "Then=Nasty / Now=Kind" style.

So I asked why that idea wouldn't apply to Vice-president Harris's recent speech in Ghana. That is still a work in progress. But it had me wondering what was wrong about something related to the content of her speech, and then I figured out what was bothering me.

It makes no difference at all what she said, because the key is that a top representative of the U.S. government stood before the world wearing that halo with, at its center, the half-globe filled with the 'shame-on-you' gas. Now the Associated Press released news that seemed to indicate VP Harris referred in some manner to race-related events that took place in the 17th Century. Most definitely a "Then" situation.

I wrote it as the air of shame was hung over those people where she made that speech. (I think I used that style.) VP Harris and her staff and the administration knew very well that issue on race relations would be picked up by the major news entities and be used to help the Democratic Party. I don't know if they thought about whether that action would benefit our nation.

True, getting the attention of the major media entities is one function of any political party. This particular case centered on race relations.

I want to simplify all these issues (package them together) of slavery, the resistance to equal rights, the granting of civil rights, the KKK, the BLM as related to the present day topic of race relations.

It all has to do with race relations, and it seems we are primarily focused on race relations between black folks and white folks, although too much focus on black/white race relations alone is itself trouble.

I better pause at this point and give y'all a break, but there will be a Part 2. Plus I may be near the AI informing me "You have typed too many characters in this text box."
 
The Republicans say the Arkansas laws are outdated.

Yes, desegregation is a fad, it expires. Do it for a few years, then go back to segregation. Good argument that they do nothing racist.
What else do you got that makes Republicans the filthy, racist party the Democrats were for 100+ years.

I don't like having to repeat because people can't listen. I said, Republicans today are NOT as bad as the southern states used to be. Should I bold that? Repeat it like Fox news so it sinks in? But they ARE fare MORE racist than Democrats TODAY, and if you need that explained, it's like talking to someone who doesn't speak English.
 
Yes, desegregation is a fad, it expires. Do it for a few years, then go back to segregation. Good argument that they do nothing racist.


I don't like having to repeat because people can't listen. I said, Republicans today are NOT as bad as the southern states used to be. Should I bold that? Repeat it like Fox news so it sinks in? But they ARE fare MORE racist than Democrats TODAY, and if you need that explained, it's like talking to someone who doesn't speak English.
In a few counties the desegregation laws are working against the children they are supposed to protect.
The current law in Arkansas calls for parents to have the choice when it comes to what school their children will attend. In some counties desegregation laws get in the way of parents choice. The new law gives the choice to everyone regardless of race. Black kids won't be forced to attend failing schools in these counties.
I don't understand why so many on the left are against school choice.
 
I don't understand why so many on the left are against school choice.

Well, perhaps it would help to learn the history of Republicans causing 'failing schools' for Democrats/people of color and supporting better schools for Republican/white children. If your argument is Republicans wanting to IMPROVE justice for people of color on segregation, sorry if you get the same laugh MTG did calling for decorum.
 
Well, perhaps it would help to learn the history of Republicans causing 'failing schools' for Democrats/people of color and supporting better schools for Republican/white children. If your argument is Republicans wanting to IMPROVE justice for people of color on segregation, sorry if you get the same laugh MTG did calling for decorum.
You are the typical liberal. Two times now you've cherry picked my responses. You don't want to get down to the actual facts of the debate.
Those Republicans in Arkansas are trying to get three counties opened up to the law giving parents the choice where to send their kids to school. Getting rid of the current 50 year old law is going to give school choice for kids currently stuck in underperforming schools. The highest percent of those affected will be black kids.
What's the problem?
Address what I actually say here. Good luck.
 
You are the typical liberal. Two times now you've cherry picked my responses. You don't want to get down to the actual facts of the debate.
Those Republicans in Arkansas are trying to get three counties opened up to the law giving parents the choice where to send their kids to school. Getting rid of the current 50 year old law is going to give school choice for kids currently stuck in underperforming schools. The highest percent of those affected will be black kids.
What's the problem?
Address what I actually say here. Good luck.
No, I'm discussing the bigger picture you want to ignore. I also raised a problem you ignored. Where is fixing those 'failed schools'? What students are you condemning to go to them, since you say nothing about fixing them, only about helping some students not go there?

Republicans have a history and an agenda, and you ignored that point, also, trying to pretend they give a CRAP about black students, instead of their political agenda for 'privatization' and to weaken desegregation laws.
 
Address what I actually say here. Good luck.

A bit more you left out:

Moore said the position of the four districts is that although racially discriminatory practices on the part of the districts themselves ended years ago, there are other issues at play, including the potential for Arkansas' school choice law to open districts up to the problem of white parents fleeing the districts and taking state funding with them.

"The consent decrees involved a lot more than just student transfers," she said. "Through the years, all of these districts have taken the position that they are non-discriminatory in their operations but the white flight issue persists and therefore, participating in school choice has a segregative impact."

As I suggested, about enabling 'white flight' and defunding the schools. Quote is from an area newspaper.
 
The Republicans say the Arkansas laws are outdated. The current law in Arkansas calls for parents to have the choice when it comes to what school their children will attend. In some counties desegregation laws get in the way of parents choice. The new law gives the choice to everyone regardless of race.
Indeed, and “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread” too.
The left ignores the facts. Can you tell us what is racist about what the Arkansas Republicans are doing?

What else do you got that makes Republicans the filthy, racist party the Democrats were for 100+ years.
At least you have (accidentally[?]) admitted that the Democrats are no longer the "filthy, racist party" it was up until the 1960s. Did you realize that approximately 83% of all living Americans did not live under a "filthy, racist, Democratic party" government?
 
In a few counties the desegregation laws are working against the children they are supposed to protect.
The current law in Arkansas calls for parents to have the choice when it comes to what school their children will attend. In some counties desegregation laws get in the way of parents choice. The new law gives the choice to everyone regardless of race. Black kids won't be forced to attend failing schools in these counties.
I don't understand why so many on the left are against school choice.
An interesting point but one that ignores the question "Why are schools in 'Black' districts failing in number out of proportion to the rate that schools in 'Not Black' districts are?" - doesn't it?
 
An interesting point but one that ignores the question "Why are schools in 'Black' districts failing in number out of proportion to the rate that schools in 'Not Black' districts are?" - doesn't it?
I'm sure there are some major reasons but i guarantee it's not the students at fault.
 
Back
Top Bottom