You seem to have forgotten about circularity. There is no need for an infinite amount of words, because an infinite regress can be supported by vicious circle. Any way, these things just demonstrate that your claim, that any word used in a definition, must itself be defined, is a false claim. — Metaphysician Undercover

You seem to have forgotten that words are merely scribbles and sounds. So to say that words are defined by other words is saying that scribbles and sounds are defined by other scribbles and sounds. But then those scribbles and sounds point to things that are not scribbles and sounds and this is the step that avoids the infinite regress. What we are doing with words is pointing to things that are not words. I don't have to define "rain" by using other words. I can point to it raining outside. But if it's not raining outside, how do I communicate the idea of rain? I have to use words and I have to keep using words until I can simply show you what the words mean. We aren't telepathic, hence we rely on scribbles and sounds to communicate the other sensations that we experience.

I really don't see your point Harry. Using my guide, the dictionary, I can define reason without using the word consciousness. — Metaphysician Undercover

Which seems to indicate that consciousness isn't a requirement for reasoning.

"The intellectual faculty by which conclusions are drawn from premises", for example. The problem is that "intellectual faculty" tends to imply a conscious thinking being. — Metaphysician Undercover

Computers can draw conclusions (output) from premises (input).

Is it your point to argue that a computer has an intellectual faculty, and therefore artificial reason is the same thing as natural reason? If so, you still don't get beyond the point I'm making, and that is that artificial reason is derived from natural reason, such that natural reason is prior to artificial reason. And therefore, to understand "reason" we need to understand natural reason as being the foundation for artificial reason. — Metaphysician Undercover

The point that I am making is that there is no difference between natural and artificial reasoning. Brains are physical objects, like computers, yet you attribute natural reasoning to brains and artificial reasoning to computers. Why?

The fact that a small percentage of black people have achieved financial success is irrelevant to the discussion. — EricH

No it isn't. What does a society with systemic racism look like vs a society without systemic racism but still has individuals that are racist? It seems like the differece would be America circa 1800 vs America 2020.

Reducing my argument to whatever statistics I might have shared is another straw man. Does it ever stop with you? — Benkei

Straw man. You said no one here has said that. I showed that you and 180 did say that. Now you want to whine about me reducing your argument to some stats that you used to say what you just said you didn't say. Your inconsistencies reduce your arguments gibberish.

That's your opinion, but I think it is very clear that it is incorrect. If we need each term defined as you say, there'd be an infinite regress of definitions, and no one would understand anything — Metaphysician Undercover

Only if there were an infinite number of words. There isnt, so your argument is invalid.

As I said, it's defined that way, the more general term being used to define the more specific. Reason (the more specific) is defined as a feature of consciousness (the more general). — Metaphysician Undercover

And yet you can't define reason without using the word consciousness. So either define consciousness or define reason without using the word. Does not reason entail using information to achieve some goal? Does a computer reason? If you're going to say no because the computer isn't conscious, then you'd be using circular reasoning. You'd need to define consciousness and why you think brains are conscious but not computers.

When you post links to stats that show blacks being shot by police at higher rates relative to population, what are you trying to argue? All you have to do is go back and read all times 180 responds with calling me a racist and makes no other argument in his post, simply for disagreeing with him.

Racism is in such short supply these days that those who profit off its existence have relegated it to the invisible and nowhere, or in fact have become racists themselves — NOS4A2

Exactly. Identity politics skews your view of the world where you see everything through the prism of your own skin color. Whenever a white man disagrees with a black man, it MUST be due to racism. If a cop shoots a black man, it MUST be due to racism, etc.

1. We're not in debate teams so there is no "your side". 2. Hypocrisy isn't a fallacy. 3. You haven't pointed out any fallacies yourself so you "missed" them just as much. 4. You were trying to have an argument with me and failed. 5. Your latest point is another big, fat red herring.

You're on fallacy number 4 now. You could go back to my initial comment and try again but I suspect you'll persist in missing the point. — Benkei

Strawman. Address what I wrote, Hindu, like you're not a disingenous tRumpy troll — 180 Proof

:lol:
This is rich - you both now want to be so "concerned" about logical fallacies after having blatantly committed them yourselves and didn't care, so why should I?

I gave up trying to have a reasonable conversation with you both a long time ago because you can't be consistent. You're counting ghosts again, as I never intended to be reasonable. You reap what you sow, right 180?

Well, I don't think so really. All we need is a proper definition of "reason". The more specific term is defined in relation to the more general, but a definition of the more general defining feature is usually not necessary. So for example, we might define "human being" through reference to the more general, "mammal". A definition of "mammal" may or may not be called for. We define "mammal" in reference to "animal", and a definition of "animal" may or may not be called for. Likewise, if we define "reason" in reference to consciousness, a definition of consciousness may or may not be required. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is nonsense. If part of the definition of a mammal is that it is part of the group that we call animals, then animals needs to be defined in order to properly define mammals. The same goes for consciousness if you are going to say that reason is limited only to it.

So what is it about reason that makes it limited to consciousness?

Ad hominem. That's three fallacies in a row. I'm labelling the nonsense you call arguments and not missing a beat. — Benkei

But you missed all the fallacies made by your side. So you're inconsistent in your application of the rules and thats the worst fallacy if them all- hypocrisy. It makes us think that you really aren't interested in avoiding logical fallacies at all.

Many Whites like to tell Blacks to "get over slavery" & Jim Crow when, in fact, they haven't gotten over their Confederate ancestors losing their slaves and the power to enforce Jim Crow. — 180 Proof

No on alive today was a slave or owned slaves, so there is nothing to get over. Its not about getting over slavery. Its about getting over identifying people based on the color of their skin.

Racists (or sexists) are the ones who feel oppressed by the demand for equality. — 180 Proof

Racists are the ones that keep judging individuals based on some common physical feature they share with others, like "you ain't black if you don't vote Democrat" and calling all whites racist.

so at this point it's probably just pure racism driving Harry's weird rants. — Baden

Still fighting racism with racism?

0.94 here.

I know, when I post, there isn't much left to say after that. :cool:

Wanted, worked for, earned, got. — tim wood

Admitting you're a hater?...nice!

Do not you think it odd that ALM only makes noise where and when BLM is protesting, the ALM's noise manifestly an effort to drown out and silence BLM concerns? — tim wood

So the House bill that banned choke holds against all humans, not just black ones, was an attempt to drown out BLM? Or was is to be inclusive rather than divisive? Imagine a Congressional bill that bans choke holds only against blacks. That is essentially the message of BLM.

With all this fear blacks claim to have, its a wonder they even come out of their house. Of course that's politics-say one thing, do another.

What I find odd is the complacency and silence of most human beings in general when any white person is killed by cops - as if we've been conditioned to think that its okay for cops to make mistakes that cost human lives at all.

We need to root out racism, as well as address many other problems caused by the abuse of power. But isn't just one life lost one too many, regardless of the color if skin of the victim? Sure, there should be outrage when racism occurs, but shouldn't there also be outrage when other forms of police brutality and corruption occur? The fact that there isn't and only when blacks are killed indicates the that outrage is disproportionate. Even if blacks are killed at higher rates (and no proof that every one of those instances were the result if racism), the level of outrage is disproportionate. There should be at least some outrage, but there is zero outrage.

We cannot call it reasoning because reasoning is limited to conscious judgements. So i wonder what kind of principles are being applied in this subconscious interpretation. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is an unwarranted assertion. What is it about consciousness that makes reasoning limited to it? To answer this we need a proper definition of consciousness.

What are you, a Hobbit? Because my arguements are flying over your head.

Look who's talking.


I could not agree more. BLM's narrow-minded scope of addressing racism could be expanded to address ALL instances of police brutality and corruption against ALL lives. ALL lives matter doesnt delegitimize racism or black lives, it acknowledges it and adopts it as part of its platform. ALL lives matter is inclusive, while BLM is divisive and segregating. Any opinion other than theirs is racist.

Freedom of speech cuts both ways. Like the guy in the video says, just as you have the right to express your ideas, so do they. While it appears that this Trump crowd has taken the higher ground and provided BLM a platform to make their argument, I wonder if they would have provided the same respect for an atheist?

my intention was to convey that the distinction and identification we get is a feature of perception, not of reality as such. — unenlightened

Then the distinction between victim and perpetrator is a feature of perception (whose perception?), and not real? If I took your posts and reposted them without crediting the source, then YOUR outrage would be just a result of YOU not understanding that the distinction is merely a feature of YOUR perception and not of reality as such.

There you have it folks: Its okay for blacks to fear cops based on some stats, but not okay for cops to fear blacks based on stats, them ignoring instructions by the cop meant to keep both of them safe, and reaching into their vehicle.

Nice. Victim blaming. If only women didn't wear skirts. If only black people weren't distrustful of the police.

EDIT: On the other hand, I suppose it's progress for you to admit there is a problem here. — Benkei

If only blacks and non-blacks weren't distrustful of blacks who commit more than their fair share of crimes, particularly hate crimes.

When a black woman calls the police because her ex black lover (Jacob Blake) with a criminal record of sexual assault is trespassing on her property and steals her car keys, then she's racist and sexist for calling the those racist cops on a black man, right Benkei? When he then ignores the police and proceeds to reach into his vehicle, then its the cops fault for shooting him in the back, right Benkei?

Everyone is prejudiced (re: the human condition); however, only Whites (& their Nonwhite 'racial apologists') - overwhelmingly in control of governments and businesses — 180 Proof

What else would you expect when a majority of the population is white? What are you advocating for - the minority ruling the majority? You do realize that there are countries run completely by blacks? You do know where to look for those, right, and then the type of corruption that goes on in those countries? Everyone is not only prejudiced to some degree or another, but corrupted by power as well, including blacks.

which adversely affect the liberty, lives & livelihoods of Communities of Color for the historically well-documented, predominant, benefit of the liberty, lives & livelihoods of White Communities - can be "racist" in an America wherein Communities of Color do not control predominant shares of any governments or business that adversely affect or threaten White Communities. — 180 Proof

If only this were true, you wouldn't have whole districts run by black mayors, black police chiefs, black judges, black presidents, etc. If everyone is prejudiced then it doesn't matter who is in power. What matters is that citizens protect themselves from those in power and are corrupted by it, no matter what their color of skin.

And to say that if these domains should be controlled predominantly by non-whites, is to say that you prefer the minority to rule over the majority. You are saying that we should give blacks more than their fair share of representation and power. Thanks for showing your true colors, 180 - communist red.

the self is a naturalistic fallacy constructed from the limitations of the senses, which do not make any real boundary or change in the world. — unenlightened

Whose senses?

Defining a word is to give a definition which will be adhered to within a logical argument or a similar use. This is a prescriptive venture. It prescribes how the word will be used and interpreted. What the dictionary gives us is a description of how words are generally used. — Metaphysician Undercover

Which is to say what the word generally means, and how it is commonly understood, or interpreted. All of these terms are compatible with each other, so we seem to be understanding each other and agreeing as we are using different words that have similar meanings to reiterate what the other is saying.

Your use of "common understanding" doesn't make any sense to me. Individual people understand, and have an understanding. But the way I understand things is different from the way that you understand things. Yet we can communicate. So I think your proposition, that a "common understanding" (which appears incoherent to me) is required for communication, is false. — Metaphysician Undercover

Exactly, YET we communicate. So how do you explain communication without a common understanding, or way of interpreting scribbles and sounds?

I believe that this is intuitive. Everything we sense and observe, lightening, thunder, the ground, buildings, sky, words, is intuitively received as having significance or meaning. This is why I have requested a difference between sensation and observation. When we sense things, there is a huge magnitude of events happening all at the same time, and we instinctually prioritize the significance of the various things, and observe those assumed to have importance. — Metaphysician Undercover

It seems to me that you can't sever the interpretation from the sensation - as if sensations just occur without the addition of its interpretation. The brain subconsciously interprets the sensory data and filters it before you even become aware of it in your conscious mind. The conscious part of the mind seems to be an extra layer of fault-tolerance - interpreting sensory data and interpreting it in a social context, like for communication.

I think there is a big difference between conscious understanding, reasoning, and the unconscious, intuitive, assigning of importance to sensations. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, that begs the question: What is consciousness?

It is a use of words, but the dictionary does not define the meaning of words. It gives guidance, in the form of a general representation of how words are commonly used. — Metaphysician Undercover

Isn't that what "defining the meaning of words" means? If not, then what is a "definition"?

So the dictionary definitions are similar to inductive conclusions, descriptions of how words are commonly used. But if we look at them as inductive conclusions, they are very faulty, not acceptable induction at all, by scientific standards. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not sure I get what you mean here. My point was that there has to be a common understanding of what some words mean if they are to be used for communicating. That common understanding could be a dictionary, or experience with a person using certain words in a certain way. Either way, it requires experience with a dictionary or a person using words, to understand their use of them.

The so-called sounds and scribbles are used with intent, as symbols, and that means that they are associated with something else. We do use other things, like in your example. I didn't say that understanding is limited to the use of words. I was talking about a specific type of understanding, which I called "natural reason". — Metaphysician Undercover

That's the thing - I don't see a distinction. Don't you have to first understand that what you are looking at or hearing is words, and not just some scribbles or sounds? Only after that can you then try to understand what those scribbles or sounds refer to. At each point, there is no difference in the type of understanding required to understand the difference between scribbles and words and to understand how those words are used. In the case of lightning and thunder, you have to understand that it is lightning and thunder that you see and hear, and then understand from that what the presence of lightning and thunder mean.

Understanding is simply having a set of rules for interpreting sensory data based on experience, and that goes for scribbles/voices and lightning/thunder.

If you intended to communicate, then you would have to use words in a way that you know I would understand. If you didn't care about me understanding your use of words, then you really didn't use anything, just as you didn't use a screwdriver if you failed to turn the screw. You simply made scribbles or noises, or stripped the screw. Those scribbles and noises may mean something to you, but if your intent is to communicate, then that isn't enough. You have to understand you readers and listeners as well - like what languages that they understand and their level of competency. If not, then all you have done is make scribbles or noises.

For starter I take it that you would agree that 300 years of slavery and over 100 years of legally enforced segregation was not a good thing. — EricH

This didn't answer my question.

If you're worried about future cherry picking, then OK. But there's no cherry picking currently going on. — EricH

Sure there is.

All other things being equal - our USA society places a higher value on the life of a white person than that of a black person. — EricH

Wrong. There are many of blacks that make more than many whites combined. If Breeona Taylor was white, we wouldn't have heard about her being murdered by police. If the reports that police shot blindly in her house were correct, then they never knew what color her skin was before shooting, so to say that it was because she was black is cherry-picking - as if every instance where a black person is shot by police must be because of racism.

And it is a plain fact that no black person (other than small children) can ever be 100% sure that - without any warning - they could be subject to violent harm or death simply due to the color of their skin. — EricH

This mentality is part of the problem. Telling young black kids this makes them resist police that are simply trying to make sure that they are not being threatened. It makes them think that every police officer is racist, when that simply isn't the case.

You and others like you simply can't get it through your little heads that you are doing the exact same thing that you are complaining about - acting on preconceived notions based on the color of one's skin, or what uniform someone wears. If it is wrong to assume that blacks are criminals based on stats, then it is wrong to assume cops are racist bigots based on some stats. The hypocrisy is getting old.

Get back to me when black people actually have 13% of the wealth. — EricH

Why would I have to get back to you? This is a "yes" or "no" answer. The fact that I would have to wait indicates that you still won't be satisfied with equal treatment. This is a clear indicator that you are more interested in special treatment.

Harry Hindu, which political movement has ever ceased it's activity once it's clearest goals have been achieved and the most obvious grievances and injustices have been corrected? — ssu

No, that's why Biden is still making promises to address those same grievances that existed 50 years ago. Government accumulates more power by creating or promoting problems and offers bigger govt. as the solution.

But then that is the problem - that political parties adopt these movements and then end up skewing the grass-roots movement to something more sinister. This is what happened with the movement for getting George Floyd the justice he deserves.

I.e. hold 13% of the senior agenda-setting, investment & employment decision-making positions in American governments & businesses. — 180 Proof

Well, blacks make up 13% of the House of Representatives - happy? Something tells me that you won't be.

Regurgitating more pathetic white grievence again ... completely in denial of pro-white male affirmative reaction since 1619. — 180 Proof

Oh, so then it's regurgitating more pathetic black grievance again? I mean if it was racist for whites to do, then why is it not racist for blacks to do it? It's like you're giving a pass for the bad behavior of blacks - as if it's wrong only if a white person does it.

What makes someone representative of you simply because they have the same skin color as you? Do you represent all blacks? There are many blacks that you say that you don't. If not, then how can you even say that some representative is representing all blacks - as if a white person couldn't represent a black person and vice versa. It's not the color of your skin that makes you representative of some group. It's the thoughts in your head and your goals that you share.

Let's start with an easy example. After WWII, black soldiers were systematically denied education & housing benefits, even tho the law itself was ostensibly neutral. The ability to purchase a house and/or get a college degree gave white soldiers significant financial & social advantages that they passed onto their children.

Most people would consider this to be an example of systemic racism. Do you agree or disagree? — EricH

Right, so some govt. showing preferential treatment based on one's skin color would entail systemic racism. But then isnt that what affirmative action is - systemic racism against non-blacks? If the results of systemic racism accrue over time, how long do we need to implement affirmative action before the balance is tipped? It seems to me that BLM will just keep asking for more, claiming that systemic racism still exists indefinitely, using cherry-picked stats. Will 13% of the population be fine with 13% of the wealth? Demanding more would be demanding more than your fair share.

I think that if you took a serious look at the way words are actually used, you'd see that meaning is provided by the context of usage, not dictionaries. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then what use is a dictionary? Is not a dictionary a use of words within a certain context, like defining the meaning of words?

The op concerned the use of words in human understanding. You took one step away from this to talk about the use of words in human communication. Now you've taken a step even further away, to talk about communication between computers. — Metaphysician Undercover

And I already showed that words are just scribbles and sounds. What makes some scribble or sound useful for understanding, and others not useful for understanding? If we can use sounds to understand things that arent sounds, then why cant we use any sound, like sounds that arent spoken words, to understand something. For instance, hearing and seeing someone say "it's going to rain" vs hearing thunder and seeing lightning, both sounds and visuals provide you with the same understanding - that it is going to rain. Propositions are just a particular type of visual and sounds.

The only thing we know for sure is that we don't know anything for sure. — Tree

We would also have to know what knowing is to say that there are things that we know and things that we don't. We must also know how to use language in order to represent the state-of-affairs of knowing that we know nothing for sure with scribbles on a screen.

You also know how to type and use a computer for you to be able to post this on an internet philosophy forum.

It's called "human understanding", and it's separated off from the rest of the world, as a particular thing to try to understand in itself. The reason for separating it off, is not to put it on a pedestal, but to try and understand it. Since this is philosophy, human understanding is a common subject to separate off.

I have made a further distinction, to address the role of natural reason, in comparison to observation, within human understanding. — Metaphysician Undercover

But that's the problem - trying to separate it from the world. We typically understand things based on their effects on the rest of the world or the rest of the world's effect on it. Understanding understanding entails knowing how understanding has a causal relationship with the rest of world - like how observations affect our understanding, or how humans behave as a result of their understandings.

And understanding is about, or of, things, so trying to separate what some understanding is, from what it is about, or of, would be a misunderstanding of understanding.

And does understanding necessarily entail the use of propositions? Does a mother deer in the woods understand the odors and sounds that it smells and hears? Based on it's behavior, it obviously understands the distinction between the smell and sounds of its offspring and the smell and sounds of a wolf. It runs from wolves, and not from its offspring.

From participation in this forum, it appears to me like there is not necessarily consistency between the way that different people interpret propositions. So I believe that communication is based in something other than consistency or coherency. I've seen people try to argue that communication requires coherency, and if you truly believe this you might present me with such an argument, but such arguments always seem to fail, so I believe that this is just an unsupported assumption.

I think, that as described above, coherency is something demanded by an individual's mind, for the sake of that thinking person's own thoughts, not something demanded by the person for the sake of communication. — Metaphysician Undercover

Communication requires a consistent understanding between two or more minds of what some scribble or sounds refers to. If your intention is to communicate with me, then your assumption is that I will interpret the scribbles on this screen in the same way that you do, so that I might catch a glimpse of your mind and its contents. Definitions in dictionaries are the consistent use of some scribble or sound. If you want to use them in a way that is inconsistent with their definition, then communicating would be difficult unless the other person has some prior experience with you using the scribble/sound in that way to know/understand/interpret in the same way that you are. In other words, communication entails the consistent understanding of what some scribble or sound points to in two or more minds. Without that, communication doesn't occur.

Communication between two or more computers requires the consist use of protocols - the rules by which the computers communicate. If one isn't following the same set of rules communication doesn't happen.

The inconsistency lies in the mind of observers in the form of their different experiences with propositions and what they refer to. The world isn't inconsistent outside of our minds.
— Harry Hindu

I don't see how you can say this, and respect your earlier premise that propositions, which are products of minds, are part of the world. If our minds are part of the world, then the inconsistencies within our minds are inconsistencies in the world. — Metaphysician Undercover

Like I said, "The world isn't inconsistent outside of our minds", which means that the only place the inconsistencies exist in the world is in minds. Inconsistencies occur because propositions and understanding are about, or of things, and not the things themselves, and our belief that every instance in time can be the same as some prior instance. All instances are unique and any understanding of some present or future event can only be based on prior similar instances, never the same instance.

The world is consistent (deterministic), in that if ever the universe was re-started, it would evolve in exactly the same was as before, but each instance in time of the evolving universe is separate and distinct, however similar it may appear based on our present intention and experiences.

However, we tend to believe that there is a reality, beyond the propositions, which is represented by them, and we will judge propositions as "true" according to some assumed ideal of correspondence. The propositions serve as descriptions of this assumed reality, produced from observation. — Metaphysician Undercover

But the propositions are part of this reality that is represented. They are composed of visual scribbles and sounds that we observe, just like the the things that the propositions represent. I don't understand this inclination to set words, or language-use, and observers, up on this special pedestal separate from the world that they represent. What makes one scribble or sound a proposition and some other scribble or sound not a proposition?

If we didn't observe (see and hear) propositions consistently between ourselves, how could we ever communicate?

Being part of the world, observers have an effect on what they observe. The inconsistency lies in the mind of observers in the form of their different experiences with propositions and what they refer to. The world isn't inconsistent outside of our minds. Being that our minds are separate, then there are bound to be differences in our minds, and each one has a different relation with the world from it's own position. The confusion arises out of trying to understand what we are talking about - the world or our experience of the world.

What I find interesting about creativesoul's definition of white privilege is that he never actually stipulates what white privilege is insofar as actual statistics or concerns. Which means that you can agree with him regardless of whether you think white privilege is a tiny, insignificant benefit or something of dramatic importance. — Judaka

If they never actually stipulated what white privilege is then how can anyone agree or disagree with it? It doesn't follow that you could agree with it, as it is just as possible to disagree with it. All you are doing is putting words in their mouth so that you might agree with them or not.

This is just more examples of how yours and creativesoul's political arguments are like those made by the fundamentally religious. God is never properly defined so there can't be an instance of agreeing or disagreeing with its existence if its not properly defined. Political parties have adopted religious characteristics - an us. vs. them mentality, an abandoning of proper reasoning in favor of emotional reactions, and a lack of proper definitions that can be agreed on.

All you can do is put words in creativesoul's mouth so that you might agree with what you're saying they said but they never said because you also said they never stipulated what they are actually talking about. You're not agreeing with what creativesoul said. Your agreeing with your own interpretation of what they meant.

He also doesn't stipulate that someone who benefits from white privilege is never going to run into problems as a result of their whiteness. He actually specifically mentions how white privilege can be used to be anti-white and he condemns that - he is not denying racism towards whiteness exists.

Quite frankly, you have only ever introduced statistics which support your argument. Where have you given a balanced account of this topic? Isn't this simply hypocrisy? — Judaka

If the statistics I showed supports what creativesoul said - that blacks can be racist and act on improperly ill-conceived notions, then why didn't creativesoul acknowledge that? This wouldn't be the first time that creativesoul agreed with someone from his side and disagreed with me even though I said the same thing. It's because they already have this preconceived notion about me and anything I say is wrong, even though it's what they said, or someone else said and they agreed with. It has become a waste of time to read anything that creativesoul writes because they are so inconsistent.

And, I haven't provided only stats. I provided thought-experiments and asked questions about it, none of which were addressed. It's about how the idea of systemic racism is exaggerated for racist purposes and how the idea can snowball and cause black men to be resistant to cops that aren't being racist, which can then result in them being shot and the non-racist cop is accused of being racist.

Black-on-black crime, black American distrust of police, examples of rich black Americans subverting expectations, these were all true well back into the civil rights era. — Judaka

What are you saying, that nothing has changed since the civil rights era? You have politicians like Biden making the same promises that they have been making for nearly 50 years, and blacks are still voting for them. It severely limits the power of your argument that white privilege is still a problem when they vote for the same people that are part of the problem. It makes it obvious that you aren't interested in justice, rather you are interested in pushing an agenda.

What about the high rate of broken families and absent fathers in the black community? That is something more recent, that wasn't the case before the civil rights movement and the authoritarian socialists "Democrats" had a had in creating with their government "hand-outs".

Pathetic.

and now you're cherry-picking my posts and purposely misconstruing what I said. You're an exemplary example of what happens when sheep are incapable of thinking for themselves and why critical thinking, logic, and coding should be a required courses in grade and middle school. It appears that you skipped out or failed those classes.

Without ever having invoked or used stats...

Weird sense of "cherry picking". — creativesoul

Then what evidence did you have for asserting this:

it is what white people do not have to deal with on a daily basis that non whites do. — creativesoul

if not some statistics? If you don't have anything to back it up, like statistics, then your whole argument doesn't have a leg to stand on does it?

But then, what should we expect from those that are unwilling to remove their politically partisan glasses? We should expect them to behave like the fundamentally religious - cherry-picking information, conveniently forgetting things that they said before and contradicting themselves, etc. Its a wonder that people are still trying to engage you on this topic considering how intellectually dishonest you are.

Are all police racist? I say some are and some aren't. What effect does a black man's belief that all cops are racist have on their behavior when interacting with police, primarily with those cops that aren't racist? Wouldn't it be similar to the effect on a white person believing that all black men are criminals? Or are you saying that black men possess a privilege that enables them to act on preconceived notions and whites can't?

The benefit of being white in America is the immunity and/or exemption from being injured because one is not. — creativesoul

If only it were true that whites aren't injured because they are white. I already showed that blacks commit hate crimes at higher rates relative to their population. If you want to use statistics of blacks being arrested and shot at higher rates relative to their population as evidence of racism against blacks, then the same applies to the statistics that show blacks committing hate crimes at higher rates relative to their population - that blacks are racist too, and then you have to ask, is this talk of white privilege just another way for blacks to exhibit their racism?

No one is talking about how these preconceived notions that blacks and cops have of each other that are exhibited when they interact and then someone is a bit to aggressive or resistant with the other and one of them ends up dead. I mean think about you're preconceived notion of me and my ideas and how that affects how you interpret what I am saying right now.

The problem is, and I know you're smart enough to know, that you're cherry-picking statistics to push your political/religious agenda.

No argument there. The only argument I have is with the science that says there are no levels. — Wayfarer

The "levels" are actually different views of the same thing. One view is of the genes, the other is of the organism, but we're still talking about you whether its your genes or your body.

Pattee criticized the symposium attendees for claiming that biology was simply "physics and chemistry" without citing a single law of physics.

Different fields of science deal with different levels of reality, like genetics and physiology. One doesn't use the same terms as another because we're talking about different things (genes vs. organisms), but one follows from the other and even supports, rather than contradicts, what the other is explaining.

Hence when purpose is just use. — jorndoe

And use is an effect of intent. No intent,, no use. But then some things can't be used how you intend because of how it was designed. Why can't the ostrich use its wings to fly even if it intended? Why can't a sparrow use its broken wing to fly?

Surely you're not suggesting that there was a bad blueprint for ostriches, but it just so happened that ostriches found a different use for their wings? — jorndoe

All organisms have bad blueprints. This is characteristic of purposeless (design without intent) natural selection designing organisms as opposed to a purposeful (design with intent) creator. Organisms make due with what they have and natural selection can only build upon biological features that already exist. Purpose is a mental phenomena as a relationship between some goal in the mind (intent) and the perceived design of some tool that is either helpful or not (useful or not) in achieving that goal. Some tools are more helpful than others because of their design.

So purpose would be the relationship between intent and design.

"The purpose of a blackbird's wings is flight."
A common kind of phrase, where purpose is use. Their use can be seen when it is flying. Ostriches, by the way, can't fly.

"The purpose of our house is to live in."
Another common kind of (meaningful) phrase, except here there's more to purpose. When the house was being planned, and later while under construction, and while uninhabited, we'd still have thought of this purpose. — jorndoe

But ostriches still use their wings for other purposes like mating displays. We often use things for which the object wasnt initially, or primarily, designed to do, but something in that design permits one to use the object in some other way but not in every way. A chair could be used as a blugeoning weapon, but pillow could not.

In the case of the house, is a purpose a thought, or more specifically an intention? What if a tornado destroys the finished house before anyone moved in to live in it? Was the purpose of the house to be destroyed by a tornado?

Purpose is simply a synonym for intent. Having a vision of the future (predictions) and a plan to realize it is the nature of purpose. In a sense the purpose of our brain is to project purpose onto the world.

Yes, of course. As I thought I'd made clear in my previous post, no one cares about trivial attribution errors. Racism is about the oppression of people by attributing racial generalisations. It is not just attributing racial generalisations. — Isaac

If you're upsetting a group of people that share the same skin color, then does that not qualify as oppressing them?

If you're not talking about taking away from whites, rather than simply enforcing the non-discriminatory laws that we currently have, then I don't see a problem, or any reason for whites to be upset.

The issue that is being described is characteristic of every nation that has a minority vs. majority population. The majority is represented more than the minority. The solution isn't to ensure that the minority has equal representation to the majority as that would be giving the minority a privilege in giving more weight to individuals' voices in that minority group compared to individual voices in the majority group, and there is likely more diversity in the majority group than the minority.

The solution is simply to ensure that our non-discriminatory laws are being enforced and to ensure that all minority groups are represented proportionately relative to their proportion of the population. When I watch TV, it seems to me that blacks and gays are now being over-represented, as if they are a larger percentage of the population than they actually are.

Put simply, it is what white people do not have to deal with on a daily basis that non whites do. It is the injury because one is non white that white people avoid suffering because they are not. — creativesoul

You mean like having to deal with a lack of fathers in the home and high rate of black-on-black crime?

As if whites don't have problems that non-whites don't have to deal with.

According to this:
https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crime-statistics

...blacks commit more than their fair share of hate crimes, which can only mean that non-blacks experience more than their fair share of being victims of hate crimes committed by blacks.

Again, either present your notion of racism and explain why what I have written is racist, or rescind the accusation. — Banno

Again, present your notion of privilege so that I might actually be uncomfortable with how your using it.

Talking about privilege makes the privileged uncomfortable. That is not sufficient reason not to talk about privilege. — Banno

Apply this same logic to talking about men and women in a way that makes a trans person uncomfortable. Its nice to see that you've come around to realizing another's hurt feelings isn't a privilege to silence someone else.

The problem though is that if you havent properly defined "privilege". So your use of the term isn't making me uncomfortable, rather it makes me think that you are confused and don't know what you're taking about.

Effectively ending racism requires understanding both it's motivations and it's effects/affects.
White privilege is an effect/affect of racism.
Effectively ending racism requires understanding white privilege. — creativesoul

What privilege do I have that Oprah Winfrey doesn't have? And would you agree that Oprah has privileges that I don't have?

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ny-churchgoer-punched-philadelphia-alter-20200824-wsi3hpkzcbcc7fykso2zscatja-story.html
Do I have the privilege of being able to punch Oprah in the face and get away with it?

BTW, what is privilege and is it the same for everyone? For instance, what would a Buddhist monk consider to be privilege?

What about the express lanes on an interstate highway? Those that have the resources can pay the toll to use the express lanes everyday and have a privilege, but what happens when there is an accident in the express lanes and not in the other lanes? The express lane loses its privileged status. So privilege is subjective and can no longer be a privilege under certain circumstances.

Imagine complaining about white privilege and then voting for Joe Biden. Hypocrisy.

It's not an analogy. It is an example. The disenfranchisement caused to non-ambulatory people is real. But thanks, by denying that this is a problem you have reinforce my view that privilege cannot be easily recognised by the privileged. — Banno

Its a very poor example. Privilege would be you getting to use the elevator while I have to use the stairs. Stairs is not a privilege. The elevator is.