Just maintain frame, brah. It was so comical to see how it didn't work for shorter, ethnic men and then have their mods just put them on blast instead of the truth. Needed more followers, I guess?
Except the guys aren't being swiped into torture camps to be brutalized to death, but otherwise you're right, having preferences is totally just like committing a holocaust.
Yes. It is much better for a woman to decline to sleep with you then have you tortured to death, starved, burned alive, rape your family to death, etc.
You really wouldn't. People that say this shit usually don't have a clue how horrific such a fate really is. Trust me, you're better off losing your virginity in your 30s than you would be as a holocaust victim.
It's not the dying part, no, its the grueling torture prior to death. You're a fool if you think being a virgin is worse than the holocaust, a deluded fool.
Did you read the comic? I'm not saying you can't complain about anything unless its as bad as the holocaust; I'm saying don't say it's like the holocaust unless it's as bad as the holocaust.
that's a really cynical way to look at modern western society and i meant legal segregation, not white flight or whatever
Same thing, whether de facto or de jure (legal), although legal was far better for blacks and didn't create an endless cycle of people moving away from diversity and the government using housing funding to try and force it back in again.
Hillary Clinton, "In America today, our schools are more segregated than they were in the 1960s."
No, it's not. In terms of intention, magnitude, suffering, and the morality of the decisions involved, it's really not.
"Well it involves some people who I guess can be classified loosely as a group reproducing less" does not make it anything remotely close to, or worth comparing to, a campaign of ethnic cleansing.
It's not an argument about who has it worse. the answer is obvious and whoever says the opposite is just meme-ing. the point is that females claim racism is bad, yet they too prefer some races to others as evidenced by their actions.
Right, I saw that and claim they are meme-ing. I already addressed that point. What you failed to address is the quantifiable racism females have when evaluating males. Sure they aren't gassing them, but it the exact racism they shun.
I'm not sure on what basis you claim they're joking. When pressed, they're digging in. Indications are that they're serious. But I hope you're right.
As to your second point, I don't think having preferences between races for sexual partners is racism. You can't help whom you find attractive, and declining to sleep with somone isn't a mistreatment. A gay man isn't sexist for not wanting to sleep with women. I'm not an ableist for not being attracted to women with downs syndrome.
Sexual attraction is not necessary to respect someone's personhood and human rights, and abhor their abuse.
As to your second point, I don't think having preferences between races for sexual partners is racism. You can't help whom you find attractive, and declining to sleep with somone isn't a mistreatment.
Are you dense? They're literally preferring one race over another. They literally believe one entire group of people is more attractive than another. Replace this with another other characteristic (intelligence, athelitic ability) and it becomes the fucking textbook definition of racism.
A gay man isn't sexist for not wanting to sleep with women.
In this case the woman has different genitals, which changes the entire sexual experience.
How would a different race change the sexual experience? Maybe a different culture would, but that's about it.
She has a right to turn down someone she's not attracted to (I personally think she should), but it's still racism if it's based on race.
I'm not an ableist for not being attracted to women with downs syndrome.
If she can consent to sex and perform the activities that you like in bed, then you would technically be an ableist.
It's still your right to reject her.
I think the critical difference is that you can't choose what you find attractive. This involves some kind of selection based on racial traits, but the definition of racism require a bit more than that. In this case, there's no element of mistreatment or injustice, so I don't see how it could be considered racism.
In this case, there's no element of mistreatment or injustice, so I don't see how it could be considered racism.
Sure, these women's rejections aren't institutional, but these women definitely do not believe that all races are equal.
The comic implies that they treated these men differently only because of race. That would be racism, even if it's not harmful and actually beneficial.
Would you say the same thing about friendship? What if I didn't want to be friends with certain races?
You can't really choose which people you enjoy being around, but that's still racist.
What, in your mind, makes me an ableist in the above scenario (assuming she can consent etc)? My lack of attraction to the woman with downs, or my declining to sleep with her despite my lack of attraction?
All you know in this scenario is that she has Down Syndrome. You rejected her only for that reason.
Attraction is a physiological response. It's not a belief about equality or a choice whom to befriend. You cannot choose whom you find attractive.
It's therefore not institutional, not a choice, and not a conviction regarding equality or personhood. It's no different from me not liking freckles, for example - it's just a more sensitive topic.
Enjoyment is also a physiological response. That means choosing friends by race is also acceptable.
Yes, people have a right to reject by race. It's better for everyone involved. But if they do this, then they do not really believe every race is equal.
Also, look at the rejection messages in the comic. These men are being abused for their race.
Dating is also not an involuntary physiological response. You choose your significant other. You don't choose what you enjoy platonically either.
So if choosing your significant other by race is not racist, then neither is choosing your friends by race. It's clearly absurd to say that choosing by race is not racist.
Ah! But you're not "choosing by race," you're choosing by attraction, and attraction you don't control. There's no involuntary physiological component that mediates whom you should want to befriend in the same same way there is for who you want to sleep with.
There's no involuntary physiological component that mediates whom you should want to befriend in the same same way there is for who you want to sleep with.
Yes there is. You want to be friends with people that make you feel happy. Just as you want to have sex with someone who makes you feel aroused. Both of these things are involuntary.
Attraction is based largely on physical looks, as we all know. Race often correlates with certain physical traits (skin tone, for example). Thus, race can be relevant to determining attraction - through physical traits.
"Friend happiness" or whatnot has nothing at all to do with looks, so physical traits, including those correlating with race, are strictly irrelevant.
Once again, racial preference isn't natural, like, it isn't. Seriously, you think it's just a weird coincidence that most people in the US prefer white males?
So then I'll take it that by "not natural" you mean not innate, i.e. influenced by social factors. I'm not sure if that's completely true or if it's a bit of both, but let's say you're right for now - attraction is developmental. So what? You still can't change whom you find attractive.
So then I'll take it that by "not natural" you mean not innate, i.e. influenced by social factors. I'm not sure if that's completely true or if it's a bit of both, but let's say you're right for now - attraction is developmental. So what? You still can't change whom you find attractive.
I was just translating your liberal bs, trying to figure out whether minorities are inferior. No, they fucking aren't, btw, but I guess it's natural for women to see us as hideous monsters in your eyes. And if a woman tells a black man she wouldn't date a "filthy n*gger" I bet you'd defend her to the death.
And that would make me find her attractive how, exactly?
Or how about super pale soon and freckles, the classic ginger look. I don't like it at all. Am I racist against the Irish for not fucking an Irish girl to magically change my preference?
Yes, yes you are, you think the Irish are inferior because you think their traits are disgusting. What, you thought I'd not be stubborn? No, I usually would concede by now, but, I'd rather be a dick ;P
My attraction or lack thereof doesn't mean I "think" anything. There's no thinking involved. Attraction isn't a thought or a belief. It's an involuntary physiological response to stimuli that you cannot control.
Prejudice requires a judgement, belief, or conviction. Attraction is none of those. Stop trying to superimpose race politics onto involuntary physiological responses.
Prejudice requires a judgement, belief, or conviction.
We already went over this. A preference in race is the preconception (a bias based on race) that a person of a different race is going to be unattractive.
It's conceived opinion, or prejudice.
You can change it as a society and culture over time, sure. But to my knowledge, these things develop very young and during formative years. Can an adult just will himself to find different things attractive?
When you edit the quote to answer a question you wished I asked, instead of what I did, that's not great dialogue.
We're talking about people who tend not to experience attraction to people belonging to certain racial groups (i.e. we're not talking about people assuming they wouldn't be attracted, and we're not talking about some no exceptions, 100% rule). There are people who simply have these preferences. Whatever gave them those preferences, it's not something I think they can control.
Attraction is not a judgement, it's an involuntary physiological response. Nor do you have to be attracted to someone to respect their dignity and rights, and so I see no basis to call it racist if, for example, a man tends to not be attracted to Asian women.
When you edit the quote to answer a question you wished I asked, instead of what I did, that's not great dialogue.
I didn't edit the quote, I specified what you were asking. That is, if it is possible to change what races you are attracted to. Being not attracted to fat people is not the same as not being attracted to Black people or Asians etc. I'm just about done talking with your dumb ignorant white ass.
Why not? Whether it's innate or whether it was imprinted on you at a young age due to social influences, you can't help what you find physically attractive. Or (I'll ask again) do you think someone can will him or herself to change what they find attractive, and if so, how? (note, we're *not** talking about people merely assuming what they'll find attractive before actually looking at a person)*
Considering your "racial preference" is based on ignorance, yes, it could be changed with education, realizing that it is literally impossible to find every single black and Asian man unattractive unless you're a racist. This preference is largely based on the racial stereotype that all Asians and black men are going to look the same, and with time, this preconception can away.
(note, we're not talking about people merely assuming what they'll find attractive before actually looking at a person)
Stop trying to change the goalposts. Or do you now agree that people who exclude 100% of blacks or Asians on their dating profiles are racist?
I'm not changing the goalposts. You barged in arguing against point no one was making. We were talking in broad terms about the physiological phenomenon of being less or not attracted to certain races, which is certainly not "literally impossible."
That's critically different from the specific behaviour of people who, a priori, "exclude 100% of blacks or Asians on their dating profiles." My goalposts are exactly where they've always been. You've simply brought your own and insist I use them.
I don't think having preferences between races for sexual partners is racism.
This was your claim that I'm arguing against.
And I'll repeat myself again, a preference for race is racism. Because you are prefering an entire group of people, based on race, over another. Doesn't this sound like the perfect example of racism?
No, it does not, because in the sentence you quote, the word "preference" is referring only to the experience of tending to feel attraction to X but not Y. People may tend to not be attracted to dark skin, for example. It's uncomfortable, but it's not a judgement or a belief, and not something I believe an individual can control. It is comparable to my tending not to find freckles attractive.
Why might someone find dark skin innately unattractive? Surely there are some cultural factors at play that perhaps lead to someone developing such a distaste for a physical characteristic commonly found in people of African descent. You honestly don't believe that the racist Eurocentric beauty standards constantly pushed into the media has massively influenced what featuress people find unattractive or attractive in the west?
As I've said two or three times now, maybe it has. That could also be true of why I don't find fat attractive either. How do you suggest an individual go back in time to change whatever factors shaped their perceptions and tastes?
Maybe what? Racism HAS shaped their racial preferences. I've already told you, racial preferences are based on the prejudice that blacks and Asians are unattractive when compared to whites. Ignorance and prejudice is entirely solvable by education. Recognizing that blacks and Asians CAN be as attractive as whites. I'm not suggesting you go back in time.
Me personally? I don't have such preferences (except for maybe against the Irish, freckles and all that).
But you keep saying "opinions." What opinions? Physical attraction is not an opinion. If a woman doesn't find dark complexions attractive, that isn't an opinion. She don't need to meet someone to know if she finds him hot; she just needs to see him. It's a physiological reaction. I've pointed this our half a dozen times now, but you keep refusing to address the difference between thoughts/beliefs and involuntary neurochemical responses.
How does one simply will herself to have different tastes?
But our ideas, opinions of attractiveness is innately tied to the involuntary response of hormones. What I'm saying is that the idea of what someone considers attractive, IS an opinion. It's subjective and it's shaped by culture. If the idea of what people consider attractive can be changed, our physiological response would follow suit.
If we shift cultural attitudes and messages, yes, future generations will have different and perhaps more inclusive standards for what they find attractive.
For anyone who already exists, and has already been through their formative years, their tastes are set. Recognizing "hey, those are the cultural forces that shaped my psyche, and they're racist" doesn't remove the imprint -- I don't magically become attracted to fat body types just because I've learned on a conscious level that fat shaming is bad, or because I know that depictions of thin women in media shaped my perceptions of attractiveness. My "preferences" are locked in my psyche, and I can't will them away.
Therefore, it's pointless and sloppy to say someone is a racist if they're not attracted to x, y, or z. That attraction is not an opinion, it's not an attitude, it's not a belief. Maybe it's only happening because of exposure to racist messaging during cognitive development, but that doesn't make those people racist.
It entirely does make them racist though. What you're literally saying is "Yes, I may have racist preferences, but I'm not actually racist. That's just the way society made me (my parents raised me, or whatever excuse you want to use.)" As long as you are actively combatting your own prejudice (or "racial preferences" in this context) by first admitting that your preference for pale skin over dark skin is wrong and then trying to reverse the bigotry ingrained in our culture, you are not a racist. But refusing to criticize yourself and deal with your internalized bigotry by stating "it's a view of mine that I can't change." IS ultimately racist.
Fetishes, kinks, "types," tastes, and the things we find attractive or not are embedded in us at a very young age. There's nothing we can do to change them, and we didn't choose them. So merely having those tastes isn't an act of racism.
What everyone's duty is to reflect, think critically, and make change for future generations is a completely different discussion. I've made no claims whatsoever on those issues. My point is - and has been for this entire thread - limited to the above paragraph.
I haven't changed the subject. I've listed additional things this applies to.
Not being attracted to certain physical traits (including racial traits such as complexion, or non racial ones like body shape, breast size...) is about the images we're exposed to in our formative years (as you have insisted). Sometimes those images are discriminatory. The effects of that aren't chosen and can't be controlled by am individual. Therefore, merely having such preferences isn't an act of racism.
What we need to do about it as a society, and whether people should be critical of their development are other questions.
My point couldn't be more clear and straightforward. Please stop "retranslating" or trying to catch me in a "gotcha."
Lmao, how in the ever loving fuck have Americans convinced themselves that their racial preferences are completely natural when their media constantly pushes the idea that white people are more beautiful than everyone else.
This isn't just white women, ALL woman act like this. Why would I go for whites before pursuing my own race? I still live in an area with mostly people of my own race. You sound like the 15 year old girl who commented here.
No, but if a woman doesn’t want to date you, that’s her choice. Now are you arguing that there should be a dialogue about making society less looks centered, or government mandated prostitution?
No, if she doesn’t have a choice in the matter, that’s rape. What you’re calling for is removing the choice factor. And if her friends make fun of her for being a prude, she needs to find new friends.
So... be an asshole willingly to women? Basically take the idea of stress and peer pressure (which is a negative term) to get them to please you? How in the world do you think that’ll make you happy? Plenty of depressed people have sex.
Hold up - you're saying me, a man should sacrifice my happiness for you? See how it's the same thing. It's just a different person suffering and it hurts more to die alone than to date someone who isn't the fucking incredible hulk. So honestly, fuck your happiness. I want to not be miserable for fucking 50 years and die in agony. Fuck that and fuck you.
Actually, by the definition of "Social Libralism" it does include racial equality.
"Social liberalism (also known as modern liberalism in the U.S.)[1] is a political ideology that endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights, and also believes that the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care and education."
Note the "expansion of civil and political rights"
That implies that you intend to expand civil rights to up to some predetermined point. But, the definition of social liberalism includes no specified end, only expansion. Can you find me a definition that claims that social liberalism ends at segregation?
it doesn't say indefinite expansion either
Bro, that's a fallacy of definition. You're assuming more than the definition actually says. The definition says that social liberalism seeks "expansion." If an ideology does not seek expansion, then it is not social liberalism as social liberalism is defined.
you could expand only a bit and still fit that definition of social liberalism
No you couldn't. Again, the definition says that social liberalism seeks expansion of rights. Once you stop expanding rights you stop being socially liberal.
you could expand only a bit and still fit that definition of social liberalism
"Social liberalism (also known as modern liberalism in the U.S.)[1] is a political ideology that endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights..."
It seeks the expansion of rights. If you stop seeking the expansion of rights, then you are not socially liberal.
how is a statement that is factually true like "it doesn't say this" an assumption
Just because the sentence is factually true, doesn't mean it is logically sound. You're playing with semantics instead logic.
For example, I could say that definition of the Big Bang is "the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe."
You could say "well that doesn't say that matter will expand infinitely." And that's true, but if matter is not expanding then the state of the Big Bang is over. The definition of the big bang can't be applied to that situation.
If we take this to social liberalism. It is true that in reality civil rights might not expand infinitely. But, if you stop endorsing the expansion of civil rights, then you have left the state of "social liberalism" and the definition can no longer be applied.
it endorses the expansion of civil rights, that doesn't mean it actually expands them
Okay, well when you stop endorsing the expansion of civil rights (aka stopping endorsing segregation over the expansion of civil rights) then you are no longer social liberal. To put segregation into effect, you must first endorse it, so if you put segregation into effect you no longer endorse the expansion of civil rights and are no longer socially liberal.
Just because the sentence is factually true, doesn't mean it is logically sound.
what the fuck does this have to do with anything you fucking fortune cookie
You're playing with semantics instead logic.
i'm pointing out that you're using words wrong
And that's true, but if matter is not expanding then the state of the Big Bang is over.
the definition of the big bang is "the rapid expansion of matter"
the definition of social liberalism is NOT "the expansion of civil rights"
To put segregation into effect, you must first endorse it, so if you put segregation into effect you no longer endorse the expansion of civil rights and are no longer socially liberal.
you can implement segregation without endorsing it, it's called lying
the definition of social liberalism is NOT "the expansion of civil rights"
I think this point flew over your head. Social liberalism is an ideology, it can't act on it's own. But, people can act IN ACCORDANCE with the ideology. So, if a person is not endorsing (as in, personally believing) the expansion of civil rights, they are not acting in accordance with social liberalism, therefore the definition of social liberalism can't be applied to them.
you can implement segregation without endorsing it, it's called lying
You're using 2 different definitions of the word "endorse" it's another definition fallacy. The one you're trying to use would be called "public endorsement", which would be equivalent to lying.
But, we're talking about ideological endorsement. This is synonymous with "belief." Because, if you are a member of an ideology, like social liberalism, then, by definition, you hold the beliefs of that ideology.
Because, in this discussion, we're dealing with actual beliefs and not just what people say they believe , public endorsement can't be invoked and isn't even applicable. (Note: if we were talking about endorsement in action instead of endorsement in personal belief, this discussion would be rendered pointless because anyone can lie about anything. So your entire argument, that social liberalism can end in segregation, would be moot. This is because any ideology could just lied about and used to justify anything.) So the statement you wrote here is....just kinda dumb.
Social liberalism is an ideology, it can't act on it's own. But, people can act IN ACCORDANCE with the ideology. So, if a person is not endorsing (as in, personally believing) the expansion of civil rights, they are not acting in accordance with social liberalism, therefore the definition of social liberalism can't be applied to them.
what the fuck does this have to do with your retarded shit about the big bang
what the fuck does this have to do with your retarded shit about the big bang
The big bang was an example to help you understand what I was talking about. Note how I said "For example"
NO FUCK OFF
well that's constructive
declare one's public approval or support of
Bro, that's the second definition. If you look in the GOD DAMN Meriam Webster dictionary and go to definition 2a (because definitions 1a-e all deal with financial endorsement) you will find that endorsement can also be defined as "to approve openly." And incase you don't understand what "approve" means, the Meriam Webster dictionary defines it "as to take a favorable view".
So, a social liberal must, by definition, openly take a favorable view of the expansion of civil and political rights. When a person stops taking a favorable view of the expansion of civil and political rights, they are no longer a social liberal.
Now, if someone says that they are a social liberal but do not take a favorable view of the expansion of civil and political rights (that is to say, they act in a way that is inconsistent with the expansion of civil and political rights etc. segregation) then they are not truly a social liberal and can't be invoked in this argument.
you are the dumbest fucking person i've ever met
So that's how incels respond when they can't attack your argument. Didn't know you were a little braincel. laughs in norman
The big bang was an example to help you understand what I was talking about. Note how I said "For example"
your example was the worst analogy i've ever seen, i even pointed out how it was awful and you just ignored it
to approve openly
that literally means public endorsement, what else do you think open approval is
So, a social liberal must, by definition, openly take a favorable view of the expansion of civil and political rights. When a person stops taking a favorable view of the expansion of civil and political rights, they are no longer a social liberal.
PUBLIC ENDORSEMENT YOU CRETIN
Now, if someone says that they are a social liberal but do not take a favorable view of the expansion of civil and political rights
PUBLIC ENDORSEMENT
that is to say, they act in a way that is inconsistent with the expansion of civil and political rights
no it fucking isn't to say, "not taking a favourable view of civil rights" does not mean "acting inconsistently with civil rights"
etc. segregation
ETCETERA SEGREGATION
ETCETERA SEGREGATION
LMAO
So that's how incels respond when they can't attack your argument.
i have attacked your argument you goddamn retard, you're just too much of a moron to realise it
and i swear to god if you drop le master trole on me i don't even care because you've put far too much effort into this word salad than i have rebutting it
your example was the worst analogy i've ever seen, i even pointed out how it was awful and you just ignored it
I'd like to go on record and say that you didn't point out why you didn't understand my example. You just said "what the fuck does this have to do with your retarded shit about the big bang." That doesn't make a value claim about the example or explain what's wrong with it.
that literally means public endorsement, what else do you think open approval is
You will note that I defined "approval". Meriam Webster defines it as "to take a favorable view." I can't help you if you're just going to ignore definitions.
PUBLIC ENDORSEMENT YOU CRETIN
See my definition of approval. You will note that what a person says and what they actually approve of can be two different things.
PUBLIC ENDORSEMENT
Again, the definition of endorsement doesn't necessarily make it public. (the fact that you felt the need to add the qualifying "public" to "public endorsement" demonstrates this principle very nicely) I refer you to the Merriam Webster definition of "endorsement" and "approve"
no it fucking isn't to say, "not taking a favourable view of civil rights" does not mean "acting inconsistently with civil rights"
But, if you act inconstantly with the expansion of civil rights, then that indicates that you do not have a favorable view of the expansion of civil rights. If you did have a favorable view of the expansion of civil rights, then you would act in accordance with this belief. While the two statements (taking a favorable view, vs acting inconstantly) are not the same, the lack of the first is what causes the other. The are casually linked.
ETCETERA SEGREGATION
I meant "eg." , I guess typing "etc." is habit. But I see you made a nice ad hominin out my typo. Good for you.
i have attacked your argument
I guess I should have made a distinction between "attacking" an argument and "making a valid point" about an argument.
endorsement is open approval, i.e. public approval
Yes, it is open/public approval. So, you must openly/publicly take a favorable view. This doesn't really change my argument at all.
In case you forgot, the argument goes like this.
**1a*: If you area a social liberal, you must endorse the idea of the expansion of civil and political rights.
1b: The definition of endorse is to "openly approve" or something.
1c: the definition of approve is to " take a favorable view".
1d: the definition of open is to be "exposed to general view or knowledge"
Therefore: If you are a social liberal, you must expose your favorable view of the idea, of the expansion of civil and political rights, to the general view or knowledge. (note: under the Webster definition of endorsement as it pertains to ideas, you must believe in something to endorse it. This is the distinction between intellectual endorsement and public endorsement.)
2a:If you are a social liberal, you must expose your favorable view of the idea, of the expansion of civil and political rights, to the general view or knowledge.
2b: If you are a social liberal you must have a favorable view of the expansion of civil/political rights.
2c: Segregation ends the expansion of civil/political rights.
2b: If you are openly favorable to the expansion of civil/political rights then you cannot be in support of segregation. (because it ends the expansion of civil/political rights)
Therefore: If you are a social liberal you cannot support segregation.
2b: If you are a social liberal you must have a favorable view of the expansion of civil/political rights.
using the actual webster definition you must EXPRESS a favourable opinion of the expansion of civil/political rights.
(note: under the Webster definition of endorsement as it pertains to ideas, you must believe in something to endorse it. This is the distinction between intellectual endorsement and public endorsement
seeing that nowhere anywhere
2b: If you are openly favorable to the expansion of civil/political rights then you cannot be in support of segregation. (because it ends the expansion of civil/political rights)
even using your shitty premises, why does favouring A mean you can't support something that ends A
you can't even use logic properly
Therefore: If you are a social liberal you cannot support segregation.
logic aside, many social liberals in the 19th century supported eugenics and racial segregation
using the actual webster definition you must EXPRESS a favourable opinion of the expansion of civil/political rights.
Yes, you do express it. The definition of "express" is "directly, firmly, and explicitly stated." I mean, that's the only definition that's actually applicable. To say something false is not expression but deception.
So, if we take into account the definition of the word express, we come to: "To directly, firmly, and explicitly state a favorable view of the expansion of civil/political rights."
So my argument is sound.
even using your shitty premises, why does favouring A mean you can't support something that ends A
Simple, once you favor something that ends A, you no longer favor A. For example: Imagine you start out favoring segregation. Then you change your mind and favor the ending segregation. Now, you are no longer favoring segregation. Even if you support a bill that would end segregation in the future, by supporting the destruction of segregation, at any point, you now favor something else over segregation. You can't logically favor the existence of something and favor it's destruction at the same time.
logic aside, many social liberals in the 19th century supported eugenics and racial segregation
In the 19th century segregation would have been an expansion of civil/political rights from slavery. But, once one had achieved segregation, they would need to abolish it and favor equality in order to keep being a social liberal. If they stopped favoring expansion, they would stop being a social liberal.
To say something false is not expression but deception.
no it fucking isn't you're too stupid to live
So, if we take into account the definition of the word express, we come to: "To directly, firmly, and explicitly state a favorable view of the expansion of civil/political rights."
that doesn't mean you have to believe a favourable view you idiot
So my argument is sound.
idiot
Simple, once you favor something that ends A, you no longer favor A.
you said support, not favour you fucking weasel
You can't logically favor the existence of something and favor it's destruction at the same time.
you just changed support into favour you cretin, don't use autism logic if you can't even keep your language consistent
and this isn't even true, hypocrisy exists
But, once one had achieved segregation, they would need to abolish it and favor equality in order to keep being a social liberal.
that's factually untrue you idiot, also you ignored this;
(note: under the Webster definition of endorsement as it pertains to ideas, you must believe in something to endorse it. This is the distinction between intellectual endorsement and public endorsement
No, No, No, you don't get to change definitions just because you don't like them. The definition given in the dictionary doesn't give room for "expression" to be false. That's just you misusing of the word.
that doesn't mean you have to believe a favourable view you idiot
You'll note that the other half of the definition of explicitly states that you do in deed have to HAVE the favorable opinion. Let's look at the definition again, "Approve: to have or express a favorable opinion of". You can't just cherry pick the parts of definitions that you like, it's intellectually dishonest. (Then against I'm talking to an incel, and your entire philosophy is built on intellectual dishonesty.)
you said support, not favour you fucking weasel
I was using support as a synonym for favor. If you can't make that mental leap go back to grade school.
Just to hammer it in, lets look at definitions. If you go the dictionary and look up Favor, you'll find this 3a:"to give SUPPPORT or confirmation to." The definition of favor... is to support something. If you just go and fucking google things you'll save yourself a lot of time.
that's factually untrue you idiot
It's no factually untrue. Once they stop supporting the expansion of civil/political rights they stop being socially liberal, by definition. They can call themselves socially liberal, but by the definition of social liberalism, they're not.
(note: under the Webster definition of endorsement as it pertains to ideas, you must believe in something to endorse it. This is the distinction between intellectual endorsement and public endorsement
If you look in any dictionary, you'll see that they have different definitions of a word that can be use in different context. Now, if you stop and think for more the 10 seconds you'll realize that every single definition of a word in the dictionary doesn't work for every single sentence or context. So, I pointed out the definition of the word that I was invoking. (that which pertains to abstraction.) I was indicating the definition of endorsement (2a I think) which best fit my sentence. If I need to stop and walk you through how dictionaries work then maybe you should go back to your elementary school English class. You need to just stop and think before you ask stupid questions that you should be able to answer yourself.
I also find it fucking hilarious that as your argument deteriorates, you have to fall back on ad hominin attacks. Keep up the logical fallacies!
The definition given in the dictionary doesn't give room for "expression" to be false.
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH
To say something false is not expression but deception.
YOU CAN EXPRESS SOMETHING THAT IS FALSE
Let's look at the definition again, "Approve: to have or express a favorable opinion of".
have OR express, not have AND express
it's intellectually dishonest.
you're too fucking stupid to understand words
I was using support as a synonym for favor. If you can't make that mental leap go back to grade school.
so you use hyper autistic logical proofs but get to use random synonyms
"to give SUPPPORT or confirmation to.
DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT "OR" MEANS YOU FUCKING IDIOT
YOU COULD HAVE MEANT GIVING CONFIRMATION
Once they stop supporting the expansion of civil/political rights they stop being socially liberal, by definition.
segregation STOPS the expansion of civil rights
supporting segregation DOESN'T STOP the expansion of civil rights
YOU DUMB FUCKSTAIN
So, I pointed out the definition of the word that I was invoking. (that which pertains to abstraction.) I was indicating the definition of endorsement (2a I think) which best fit my sentence.
so you admit that you're just picking the definition that fits your "argument", NOT THE COMMON DEFINITION WHICH is obviously what the orginal definition of social liberlaism is referring to
If I need to stop and walk you through how dictionaries work then maybe you should go back to your elementary school English class.
BNUH BUH BUH YOU NEED TO USE MY DEFINITION THAT I PICKED OTHERWISE MY ARGUMENT DOESN'T WORK
endorse means political endorsement, if you don't accept this then you are not having a discussion in good faith you total moron
I also find it fucking hilarious that as your argument deteriorates, you have to fall back on ad hominin attacks.
saying you are too stupid to exist is a statement of fact, not an ad hominem, you are LITERALLY too stupid to understand my points which is why you think my argument is "deteriorating"
I meant to say approve in that sentence. I was typing this thing out before I went to work and I confused the words.
have OR express, not have AND express
Again, you can't ignore half of definition. What ever statement you make still needs to remain internally consistent. If you don't do this, then the word "approve" looses all meaning.
you're too fucking stupid to understand words
Nice ad hominem
DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT "OR" MEANS YOU FUCKING IDIOT
YOU COULD HAVE MEANT GIVING CONFIRMATION
Actually by the definition of confirmation is "2b : the process of SUPPORTING a statement by evidence." So support would still have worked in this sentence and meaning wouldn't have changed. Again, just go out and google the words you're trying to use.
segregation STOPS the expansion of civil rights
supporting segregation DOESN'T STOP the expansion of civil rights
But if you support segregation, then you don't support the expansion of civil rights. Therefore, you're not socially liberal. I don't see what you were trying to prove here.
YOU DUMB FUCKSTAIN
Nice ad hominem
so you admit that you're just picking the definition that fits your "argument"
No, I'm picking the definition that makes grammatical sense.
NOT THE COMMON DEFINITION WHICH is obviously what the orginal definition of social liberlaism is referring to
A: can you prove that there is some kind of "common definition" that exists outside of the dictionary?
B: can you prove that your "common definition" is what the original definition of social liberal was referring to?
BNUH BUH BUH YOU NEED TO USE MY DEFINITION THAT I PICKED OTHERWISE MY ARGUMENT DOESN'T WORK
No, you need to use the definition found in the dictionary. Both you and I have been using the Meriam Webster definitions this entire time and it's bad faith to randomly change that standard now.
endorse means political endorsement, if you don't accept this then you are not having a discussion in good faith
No, the original definition doesn't say "politically endorse" it just says "endorse" so we have to use the definition of "endorse." That's how logic works. You can't just add modifiers to a word until it agrees with you.
you total moron
Nice ad hominin
saying you are too stupid to exist is a statement of fact, not an ad hominem, you are LITERALLY too stupid to understand my points which is why you think my argument is "deteriorating"
Believe it or not, even if that's true, it's still an ad hominin fallacy. Note the Merriam Webster definition of ad hominin "2a: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made." For all your bluster, you're not very good at googling things.
The growing number of ad hominin fallacies only indicates that your faulty reasoning has failed you and now you need to turn to personal attacks so that you can preserve your pride. Though, as an Incel, I doubt there is very much of that.
Actually by the definition of confirmation is "2b : the process of SUPPORTING a statement by evidence." So support would still have worked in this sentence and meaning wouldn't have changed.
SUPPORTING BY EVIDENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS SUPPORTING YOU IDIOT
No, I'm picking the definition that makes grammatical sense.
GRAMMATICAL SENSE IN YOUR MORONIC POST
No, you need to use the definition found in the dictionary.
I WAS MOCKING YOU WOU DUMB DUMB DUMBASS
No, the original definition doesn't say "politically endorse" it just says "endorse" so we have to use the definition of "endorse."
i meant to say public endorsement but all your dumb dumbness made me misspeak
endorse means public endorsement, that is the standard definition and clearly what was meant in the definition of social liberalism
not "ideological endorsement"
"2a: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made."
I'M NOT ATTACKING YOU RATHER THAN ANSWERING YOUR CONTENTIONS I'M ATTACKING YOU AS WELL AS ANSWERING YOUR CONTENTION DIPSHIT FUCK SHIT FUCKER
The growing number of ad hominin fallacies only indicates that your faulty reasoning has failed you
NO IT INDICATES THAT YOU ARE TOO FUCKING STUPID TO KNOW HOW FUCKING STUPID YOU ARE AND IT'S ANNOYING ME
now you need to turn to personal attacks so that you can preserve your pride.
It's an issue of the nature of the word "or", it's an issue of the nature of definitions. The way you use or makes it seem like a difference in context (the difference between definition 1a and 1b) but this isn't the case. In this definition, or is used a qualifier. It shows that there are situations where clause 1 of the definition might not apply, and situations where clause 2 of the definition might not apply. BUT, you can't contradict either one of those clauses and still apply the definition. If you could, the word would be rendered meaningless. Because of this, the "or" is irrelevant in the context at hand.
STATEMENT OF FACT
even if it is a statement of fact, it's still an Ad hominem fallacy
SUPPORTING BY EVIDENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS SUPPORTING YOU IDIOT
Can you give me an example where supporting something based on evidence does not fall into the definition of supporting something? "Support" is an umbrella term that "supporting based on evidence" falls under.
GRAMMATICAL SENSE IN YOUR MORONIC POST
No, just grammatical sense in general. You can't ignore grammar and still have a coherent argument.
endorse means public endorsement, that is the standard definition and clearly what was meant in the definition of social liberalism
No..."endorse" means "endorse". And the word endorse is clearly defined in the dictionary, and does not run against my argument. The standard definition of endorse is indeed the one found in the dictionary that we have been using this entire time. Again, you can't randomly ad qualifiers to a word until it agrees with out, that's clear bad faith.
Can you explain why this is wrong? Or has your argument fallen apart so much that the only thing you can do is incoherently mumble one word answers?
Again, you can't contradict the definition of a word and still claim that your situation fits within that words meaning.
supporting does not fall into the category of supporting based on evidence
The is litteraly the opposite of what I said. I asked "Can you give me an example where supporting something based on evidence does not fall into the definition of supporting something?" Try again.
you fucking liar
Again, this doesn't really tell me anything. Why are you all of a sudden rejecting the definition that we have been using for this entire argument? Is it because your realizing that words, as they are defined, don't agree with your argument and you need to twist them?
you have literally said that endorsement means ideological endorsement you stupid liar
Alright, well I concede that endorse does not mean "ideological endorsement". Endorsement has the definition that is presented in the dictionary. A definition that both of us have been using up to now. And, endorsement, as it is defined in the dictionary, supports my argument.
i can contradict either one of those clauses and still apply the definition
Again, you can't contradict the definition of a word and still claim that your situation fits within that words meaning.
i'm not contradicting the definition of a word
I asked "Can you give me an example where supporting something based on evidence does not fall into the definition of supporting something?"
yeah because you're an idiot
i'm saying that SUPPORTING BY EVIDENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS SUPPORTING because supporting does not fall into the category of supporting based on evidence
Why are you all of a sudden rejecting the definition that we have been using for this entire argument?
what definition because i know for fucking sure you haven't been defining endorsement as public endorsement
Alright, well I concede that endorse does not mean "ideological endorsement".
idiot
And, endorsement, as it is defined in the dictionary, supports my argument.
just because i publicly endorse the expansion of civil rights doesn't mean i have to expand civil rights or that i can't act against the expansion of civil rights
i can contradict either one of those clauses and still apply the definition
Well, strictly speaking, you can, but then you are no longer acting in accordance with logic. In logic, a definition cannot be applied to a statement that contradicts the definition in any way.
i'm not contradicting the definition of a word
You're use of the word "approve' contradicts the definition of the word "approve".
i'm saying that SUPPORTING BY EVIDENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS SUPPORTING because supporting does not fall into the category of supporting based on evidence
True. But I would like to point out 2 things.
1: I only wrote support as a typo
2: It still doenst invalidate my use of the word support, despite the fact that is was a typo.
But because we're arguing over the definition of a typo, I suggest we stop addressing the definition of the word "support." I'll even concede the point if it make you happy. It's just a waist of time.
what definition because i know for fucking sure you haven't been defining endorsement as public endorsement
The definition in the Merriam Webster dictionary. And you can't define "endorsement" and "public endorsement." "Public endorsement" a modified, and therefore more specialized, version of the word "endorsement".
Now, the definition of social liberalism doesn't say "public endorsement" it just says "endorse". Because of this, we have to use the definition of "endorse." And that is, "to approve openly." It's the definition that both you and I have been using. And, we've already explored why that definition agrees with me.
idiot
defensive ad hominin
just because i publicly endorse the expansion of civil rights doesn't mean i have to expand civil rights or that i can't act against the expansion of civil rights
Simple, the definition of social liberalism doesn't say you have to public endorse the expansion of civil rights. It says you have to endorse the expansion of civil rights. And "endorse" is defined as "to approve openly". And, we've already explored why that definition disagrees with my argument.
Well, if you do that then you're no longer using logic. So, for the sake of a coherent argument, we shouldn't.
not strictly, as you've just said
Do you know what strictly speaking means, or are you joking?
uh huh
Just look in the Meriam Webster dictionary
give me a refresher
Gladly
**1a*: If you area a social liberal, you must endorse the idea of the expansion of civil and political rights.
1b: The definition of endorse is to "openly approve" of something.
1c: the definition of approve is to " take a favorable view". (note: if you express a view that is different from the view you hold, you are no longer "approving". That would contradict the first clause of the definition)
1d: the definition of open is to be "exposed to general view or knowledge"
Therefore: If you are a social liberal, you must expose your favorable view, of the idea of the expansion of civil and political rights, to the general view or knowledge.
2a:If you are a social liberal, you must expose your favorable view of the idea, of the expansion of civil and political rights, to the general view or knowledge.
2b: If you are a social liberal you must have a favorable view of the expansion of civil/political rights.
2c: Segregation is an idea that, if enforced, would end the expansion of civil/political rights.
2d: If you favor segregation then you favor the end of the expansion of civil/political rights.
2e: If you are openly favorable to the expansion of civil/political rights then you cannot be in support of segregation. (because it is an idea which, if implemented, would end the expansion of civil/political rights)
Therefore: If you are a social liberal you cannot support segregation.
Do you know what strictly speaking means, or are you joking?
it's not a random figure of speech you tiring moron
1c: the definition of approve is to " take a favorable view". (note: if you express a view that is different from the view you hold, you are no longer "approving". That would contradict the first clause of the definition)
NO FUCK OFF YOU LITERALLY SAID "strictly speaking, you can contradict either clause"
don't literally regurgitate the same shit you've stepped away from and that i've disproven
it's not a random figure of speech you tiring moron
Well I mean, it is a figure of speech. Honestly, it's a rhetorical joke. Strictly speaking means speaking in a precise and literal way. That is to say, you could write a sentence where a word contradicts it's own definition, you could say a sentence where a word contradicts it's own definition, and you could think a sentence where a word contradicts it's own definition. Strictly speaking, in a precise and literal way, all of these are possible. But logically speaking, they're not.
When discussing ideas and things in the abstract, strict speech tends to fall short because it deals with the literal. That's why people invented logic. Logic allows one to deal with abstractions and proofs.
So when you say
NO FUCK OFF YOU LITERALLY SAID "strictly speaking, you can contradict either clause"
You're correct in the literal sense. You can put pen to paper and write a sentence that contradicts the clause. But, this sentence wouldn't be logically valid.
If I knew you didn't know what "strictly speaking meant" I wouldn't' have made that joke.
don't literally regurgitate the same shit you've stepped away from and that i've disproven
And you actually haven't disproven my argument. You tried to attack some of the premises, but failed to actually invalidate any of them.
Though, if you think you've disproven it, I'm all ears. (that means I'm listening to you. Please don't take that turn of phrase as heavily as you too "strictly speaking".)
I wrote the thread. In the thread you failed to invalidate my argument. Now you're trying to preserve your pride by dismissing me instead of making a coherent counter argument. You litter looked at the last scentence of my comment and tried to bail.
You have nothing, you're gasping for air, and now you're putting your tail between your legs and trying to make a dishonest break for it.
Now if I'm wrong, then tell me exactly where my argument fails.
If you actually go back and look at the thread, you'll note that the only thing we did after I posted my formal statement of the argument was explore an issue you had with the definition of the word "approve". Then I made a joke about the turn of phrase "strictly speaking" which you some how took literally.
That's all that's happened since I state the formal argument. You haven't disproven anything about it. You haven't even invalidated the premise that you tried to attack after I posed it.
The definition of approve you must take and express and favorable view when ever applicable. That's how an "or" clause works in a definition. If a situation arises when you can only apply one, then you can ignore the other. But, in situations like this, when you can apply both clauses, you have to apply both. Anything else violates the definition of the word. This is basic symbolic logic.
logic is literally about inferring definitions through premises you idiot
Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, translit. logikḗ[1]), originally meaning "the word" or "what is spoken", but coming to mean "thought" or "reason", is a subject concerned with the most general laws of truth,[2] and is now generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of valid inference.
Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to conclusions.
Now, did you get to that definition of logic by logically inferring it? No, logic is how we infer conclusions from premises. But in order to do that, we need to pull definitions from outside of logic. Just like you just pulled a definition of logic from a source that was not your own symbolic reasoning.
Because that's how logic works. There are no definitions that exists entirely inside of logic. Even your definition of logic does not exits inside of logic, it was created within the discipline of Lexicography. But, because it is a definition, it can be used in logic. Any definition can be used in logic as long as it is sourced properly and logically sound. That's why something like the Meriam Webster dictionary can be used to generate premises in symbolic logic.
Yes it does, symbolic logic necessitates the use of definitions that originate from outside of itself. Logic, by itself, cannot generate it's own definitions.
Alright, lets attack this in another way. Can you come up with any premises that exists entirely within logic and do not originate from another discipline?
Of course you can apply logic to premises. By the definition of logic it can be applied to argumetns. Your own definition says that logic...
is now generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of valid inference.
Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to conclusions.
You yourself said that...
logic is literally about inferring definitions through premises you idiot
If you say that logic can't be applied to premises you're contradicting yourself and your own definition of logic.
No, the argument 1 doesn't actually make a logical claim, it just defines Social Liberalism. Which you said is valid.
You'll note that I stated with the definition of social liberalism. Then, I extrapolated out the definitions of the key word used instead of the definition of social liberalism. I never make any claims out side of making the expanded definition of social liberalism, which is...
If you are a social liberal, you must expose your favorable view of the idea, of the expansion of civil and political rights, to the general view or knowledge.
There is no claim here, just a definition of what it takes to be a social liberal.
This is valid because according to you,
premises are used by logic to infer definitions
I have my premises from the dictionary, and I used them to infer a definition of social liberalism.
If a situation arises when you can only apply one, then you can ignore the other. But, in situations like this, when you can apply both clauses, you have to apply both. Anything else violates the definition of the word. This is basic symbolic logic.
No, the way definitions work is separate from symbolic logic. Symbolic logic is just the format/tool used to structure arguments. The need to apply an enitire definition is just built into the nature definitions. If you don't have to apply a words entire definition then words become arbitrary and meaningless.
Again, have you ever taken a middle school reasoning class?
Symbolic logic is dependent on the nature of definitions, but definitions are not dependent on the existence of symbolic logic. Therefore, definitions are independent of symbolic logic, but symbolic logic is not independent of definition. Again, middle school reasoning.
no they fucking don't, i'm not even going to engage with this ridiculous statement
Ill give you an example. Let's take the word "engage". The definition of which is 2b "to do or take part in something". Let's apply your logic to engage. According to you, it's possible to do an activity, but not take part in it. It's also possible to do an activity and not be engaged in it. And the opposite is true, engagement doesn't nessisarily mean that you're doing or taking part in something.
Do you see how your reasoning breaks down? If we apply your reasoning to definitions, then they don't nessisarily mean what they are supposed to mean. Definitions got from an objective standard to individual interpretation.
so symbolic logic is derived from definitions but definitions are not derived from symbolic logic
No,the nature definitions are not DEPENDENT on symbolic logic. Definitions can still be created by logic, but logic would not be the thing that defines a definition.
it's possible to take part in it, to do it or to take part in it and do it
But it's not possible to engage with it and not do/take part in it?
but the definitions you're using as premises weren't created by logic, or at least you haven't shown how they were created by logic
We've already established that your definition of logic allows the use of lexiconic definitions. You even said that thse kinds of definitions could be used in the creation of another definition.
at least one of those definitions has to be used, yes
Alright, then please give me an example of a time when you can be engaged in something, but not take part in it.
Yes we have, you definition states that "now generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of valid inference.
Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to conclusions."
A premise can be a definition, therefore definitions can be used in logic.
what does this have to do with "the definitions you're using as premises weren't created by logic"
My main argument, that social liberals can't be in support of segregation, relies on the definition of social liberalism that has been created with sub-definitions found in the dictionary.
ok i didn't pay attention to what word you were using, both of those definitions mean the same thing
The word was "engage". You said it was possible that a person can be engaged in something yet no take part in it. You didn't give an example of how this is possible.
A premise can be a definition, therefore definitions can be used in logic.
that doesn't mean that logic can be applied to definitions
My main argument, that social liberals can't be in support of segregation, relies on the definition of social liberalism that has been created with sub-definitions found in the dictionary.
yeah well that's not in the formal statement of your argument is it
You said it was possible that a person can be engaged in something yet no take part in it.
i retract that, in this case both sub-definitions mean the same thing
you can use premises that aren't derived from logic as premises but you can't apply logic to them
Okay, the my premises are intact and my argument is still valid.
no they aren't
Actually, they are
**1a*: If you area a social liberal, you must endorse the idea of the expansion of civil and political rights.
1b: The definition of endorse is to "openly approve" or something.
1c: the definition of approve is to " take a favorable view".
1d: the definition of open is to be "exposed to general view or knowledge"
Therefore: If you are a social liberal, you must expose your favorable view of the idea, of the expansion of civil and political rights, to the general view or knowledge. (note: under the Webster definition of endorsement as it pertains to ideas, you must believe in something to endorse it. This is the distinction between intellectual endorsement and public endorsement.)
both of these words mean participate
Ah, actually no. Do mean : "To bring to pass"
And "take part in" actually does mean to "participate in"
These are two different words with different definitions, they cannot be said to be the same thing.
you haven't defined it because your definition is wrong
That's the definition from the Merriam Webster Dictionary. It's the definition that both of us have been using this entire time!
where are you getting this definition from
The Merriam Webster dictionary, just like every other definition I've used this entire time.
this is a premise that you haven't derived from logic so you can't use both definitions with or
No, this premise is a definition from the dictionary. I don't understand what your problem with it is.
no, i can tell from the examples that do means participate in, it's not hard
That is, in the most literal sense, not how argumentation works. You can't just claim that a word means something because "I just have magical voodoo that lets me know it's meaning", you have to define your terms. If you don't define your terms, your argument is meaningless.
To prove my point, I'll take your quotes and swap out "do" for social liberals.
"I can tell that social liberals can't approve of segregation from the examples, that do mean "not support segregation", it's not that hard"
That's the definition from the Merriam Webster Dictionary. It's the definition that both of us have been using this entire time!
no it isn't, i just checked MW online
No, this premise is a definition from the dictionary. I don't understand what your problem with it is.
not in the dictionary
That is, in the most literal sense, not how argumentation works. You can't just claim that a word means something because "I just have magical voodoo that lets me know it's meaning"
i'm saying that the examples clearly show that it means participate in
To prove my point, I'll take your quotes and swap out "do" for social liberals.
"to prove my point i'll do something stupid that makes no sense"
Did you really, it's defection 1a. It's the defection that we've been contesting this entire time.
not in the dictionary
It is literally definition 1a, of approve, on the MW web site. Did you actually google it?
i'm saying that the examples clearly show that it means participate in
Examples are irrelevant. In a logical discussion you need definitions. You just don't want to use a definition because they definition disagrees with you.
"to prove my point i'll do something stupid that makes no sense"
It is literally taking your own logic and applying to to the major premise of my argument. If your saying that your own argument is "stupid and makes no sense" then yes, I agree.
I already explained why the "express" clause is irrlivenat because a definition cannot contradict itself and still be valid.
"do" doesn't disagree with the example
We can't use examples, because eamples are subjective and up to interpation. You might see an example as conforming to the definition of "do" and someone else might not. Therefore, we have to use definitions in debate. Definitions are not up to interpretation, they are objective. Now, if you don't want to stick to defintions, this tells me that you know the defition of "do" doesn't agree with your agument and you're trying to ignore it so that you can preserve your pride. That, of you[re arguing in bad faith.
the examples used are part of the definitions
They are indeed use to show how a definition operates in real life, but they do not supersede a definition. This is because examples are subjective and up to interpretation.
So, lets do away with this example bullshit and stick to objective definitions.
I already explained why the "express" clause is irrlivenat because a definition cannot contradict itself and still be valid.
lol suuuuuuure
We can't use examples, because eamples are subjective and up to interpation.
if both people accept the examples then of course we can
Now, if you don't want to stick to defintions, this tells me that you know the defition of "do" doesn't agree with your agument and you're trying to ignore it so that you can preserve your pride. That
maybe if you're stupid
They are indeed use to show how a definition operates in real life, but they do not supersede a definition.
wrong
This is because examples are subjective and up to interpretation.
citation needed
So, lets do away with this example bullshit and stick to objective definitions.
you're going to discard any partial definition that doesn't agree with you anyway lol
Do I need to bring out the example of "engage" again? Because you couldn't' answer is last time. It's cool, I can watch you flounder for a few more minuets.
if both people accept the examples then of course we can
Okay, then I don't accept examples. I only accept definitions.
maybe if you're stupid
Nice ad hominem.
wrong
Have any evidence for that mate? You can't just state a something is "wrong", that's bad faith.
This is because examples are subjective and up to interpretation.
Okay, you're saying that our use of the word "do" is enough of an example to say that we both know what the word "do" means in a definitive matter. I do not agree with you. I believe that we need a definitions of further clarify the meaning of the word "do". Therefore, we have both interpreted the data differently.
you're going to discard any partial definition that doesn't agree with you anyway lol
Okay, the bring me a definition so that we can at least discuss it. Do that instead of you bad faith arguments.
Can you prove that you can be engaged with something without doing to taking part in it?
delusional
Nice ad hominin
HURR DURR THE MOON WAS MADE BY PIXIES
"wrong"
But that's wrong because there is evidence that this is wrong. SO, where's your evidence for your claim?
no i'm not
Then what exactly are you saying?
"to have or express a favorable opinion of"
Be definition, if you can't have an explanation contradict itself. Again, this would have been taught to you in elementary reasoning. See my example of engage. Also see my explain of the nature of definitions.
so you're saying that Webster put a definition in their dictionary that's wrong?
The definition is right, your abuse of the definition is wrong.
we've already established that definitions can't have logic applied to them unless those definitions are created with logic
First I never conceded that. I didn't argue that point because it wasn't necessary to my argument for the definition of social liberalism and I wanted to save time. Secondly, there is still a fundamentally way that definitions have to function in order for them to have meaning. I addressed this earlier, you can go look for it.
And you were wrong because they have different definitions.
Well can you show that they have the same definition?
that's just the method pixies used to create the moon
Got any proof for that positive claim mate?
what saying the definition as written is right is now abuse
Because the definition, as it is written, doesn't allow from self contradiction. You assertion that is can contradict itself demonstrates a lack of knowledge of basic argumentation. And/or bad faith.
First I never conceded that.
It's not true. But it's also not relevant to my argument, so I'm not going to put in the effort to correct it.
Well can you show that they have the same definition?
can you prove that they don't
Got any proof for that positive claim mate?
yeah the pixies told me
Because the definition, as it is written, doesn't allow from self contradiction. You assertion that is can contradict itself demonstrates a lack of knowledge of basic argumentation.
Got any proof for that positive claim mate?
But it's also not relevant to my argument, so I'm not going to put in the effort to correct it.
so you don't deny that definitions can't have logic applied to them unless those definitions are created with logic
how do you know if a third party can get the same results
Because you can google it and look for yourself. Did you just google this?
clearly it's a claim that's positive
No, definitions, by definition, are not positive claims. They're axioms or evidence.
you have said that the dictionary definition of approve doesn't apply
No, I said that you can't ignore half the definition. And I said that you can't make the definition of approve contradict itself.
how are you so bad at understanding relatively simple sentences
Okay, well those are all grammatically, and logical consistent way of interpreting the sentence "you can't apply logic to definitions." If all of these are wrong, then please present the interpretation that you want me to use.
Any third party with access to the internet can, indeed, google the words I am using.
Got any proof for that positive claim mate?
Right, you literally don't know what a positive claim is.
No, I said that you can't ignore half the definition.
No, you tried to do this with approve. You tried to ignore the "have" clause and just focus on the "express" clause. When in reality, both clauses need to be conformed to.
i didn't make anything do anything, i just repeated it as written
Again, you tried to ignore the "have" clause"
the one that's written there, it's not hard
The one that is written there has multiple interpretations. Seeing as you will not specify which interpretation is correct, and I have found three that do allow me to apply logic to definitions, I can conclude that I can apply logic to definitions.
Any third party with access to the internet can, indeed, google the words I am using.
Got any proof for that positive claim mate?
Right, you literally don't know what a positive claim is.
Got any proof for that positive claim mate?
No, you tried to do this with approve. You tried to ignore the "have" clause and just focus on the "express" clause. When in reality, both clauses need to be conformed to.
Got any proof for that positive claim mate?
Again, you tried to ignore the "have" clause"
lol this is a new one
Seeing as you will not specify which interpretation is correct, and I have found three that do allow me to apply logic to definitions, I can conclude that I can apply logic to definitions.
Yes, your ability to access the internet means that you can look up the definitions right now. And, your past uses of the definitions that I pulled from Webster show evidence that you have done this very thing in the past.
Right, you literally don't know what a positive claim is
Got any proof for that positive claim mate?
Your misuse of the term "positive claim" shows that you don't
know how a positive claim works.
lol this is a new one
No, no it's not. It's the basis for your entire country argument. Do you not even remember what you write?
well you're wrong
According to the information you've given me to work with...it's right.
I think we've gotten to a pivotal moment where you can't actually find a way to counter my argument anymore so you're just stalling for time. It's nice to know that we're close to either blatant bad faith argumentation, or a concession.
but how do you know that a THIRD party could do that
Because that's how data bases work. Anyone can look up the information and find it. It's the nature of google to allow anyone to look up the Meriam Webster dictionary.
i never tried to ignore the "have" clause
So, you're saying that the "have" clause has to apply to any use of the word "approve."
i gave you a sentence and you read it wrong
Well, unless you're going to tell me how to read it correctly, I'll assume I'm in the right. So, correct me.
it's a statement or premise, doesn't need reasoning
No, it's a claim. You claim that you don't ignore the "have" clause. And claims need reasoning. So, you can give me the reasoning for your claim, or we can go back into bad faith territory.
what's there to interpret
Well, considering I gave you 3 separate grammatically and logicaly valid interpretations, apparently a lot.
it's my opinion, i don't need my opinion to be independently verified
We're not auguring about opinions. We're arguing about definitions. If all you have to back your argument is your opinion, the you're forced to concede the argument.
what's there to interpret when it's read by a non-idiot
A: nice ad hominem
B: What do you mean by "apply"? What do you mean by "logic". Is it just symbolic logic or logic in general? In what way are you using the word "definitions", because definitions are incorporated into logical arguments.
We're arguing about definitions. If all you have to back your argument is your opinion, the you're forced to concede the argument.
we're arguing about me saying "nah"
What do you mean by "apply"? What do you mean by "logic". Is it just symbolic logic or logic in general? In what way are you using the word "definitions", because definitions are incorporated into logical arguments.
apply-apply
logic-logic in general
In what way are you using the word "definitions", because definitions are incorporated into logical arguments.
I think you guys are overdoing it with this one. You cannot force attraction. What's that saying from that Tom hanks movie? Love is fart- if you have to force it, it is probably shit.
I understand that the OP is a curry cel born here in America . Let me be brutally honest as a fob currycel who seen both ends. Us curries barring some Persian looking Chadpreets are always gonna have a shitty times dating here in occident. We were all meant to have nice degrees and careers and for our parents to find us a nice curry girl for marriage. Our average height for men is probably 5'5, 5'6 and self reported penis average of 4". We were never meant to compete against 6'5 Aryan gods and Tyrone mandigos.
Being bitchy abt western femoids, especially the white ones, choosing the former two instead of us is a futile exercise that is just gonna add further to your frustration.
I personally think alot of ethnic cels, when they whine abt inceldom, are just gas lighting their white girl fetish. Let's be honest here, endogamy is still the norm among curry and MENA communities even in second and third generations. Only exception being ricecels, rice femoids do seem to worship mayo and Shlomo cocks.
Not true. People raised in nonwhite cultures do not want white mates. Im asian and Ive lived in both asian and white cultures. I have asian friends that ONLY hang out with asians and do gay ass kawaii shit snd drink boba.
I personally dont prefer an asian mate because Ive been exposed to a different culture in college and I like that culture.
You're replying to me. No need to use me in third person. Currycels have had it bad, I knew this long before even the most blackpilled ones, as young as 8 or 9 where I had a decent base of youtube subscribers when that site was first made (before the attention sluts, comedians, and fitness competitors) but was embarrassed of my ethnicity. Goes even further than incel anyways. We all know that. Don't understand why you think we should keep our mouths zipped though.
We shouldn't. Most currycels are bluepilled which I had completely forgotten after joining this sub. They all need to know the cold hard truth, and repeating it is what'll get the job done.
6ft and white here. If they find out I don't have a car that's when it's over 75% of the time (of the times that have some level of success). The other 25% they wait until the date and flake only to never talk to me again. I cant afford a car. I spent 6 years just to get this job at home depot and thanks to the minimum wage hike they just cut my hours in half and hired a bunch of new people so they can phase out the full timers. I make like $1000 A month now. A room costs $600/m. My city also has like 13% unemployment or something so there's nothing else. I moved across the country already and was miserable and alone (thats how I got this job, ended up transferring back).
"Yeah they are attracted to people that look like them", no idiot i live in south america and ethnic women are the worse, they have Brown skin and like 5 feet tall and literally only want 6 feet tall White chads with blue eyes, even they make fun about the guys of his same race.
Women are just nazis, the analogy is perfect, they are attracted to te race that they percive as superior.
That implies that you intend to expand civil rights to up to some predetermined point. But, the definition of social liberalism includes no specified end, only expansion. Can you find me a definition that claims that social liberalism ends at segregation?
No, No, No, you don't get to change definitions just because you don't like them. The definition given in the dictionary doesn't give room for "expression" to be false. That's just you misusing of the word.
that doesn't mean you have to believe a favourable view you idiot
You'll note that the other half of the definition of explicitly states that you do in deed have to HAVE the favorable opinion. Let's look at the definition again, "Approve: to have or express a favorable opinion of". You can't just cherry pick the parts of definitions that you like, it's intellectually dishonest. (Then against I'm talking to an incel, and your entire philosophy is built on intellectual dishonesty.)
you said support, not favour you fucking weasel
I was using support as a synonym for favor. If you can't make that mental leap go back to grade school.
Just to hammer it in, lets look at definitions. If you go the dictionary and look up Favor, you'll find this 3a:"to give SUPPPORT or confirmation to." The definition of favor... is to support something. If you just go and fucking google things you'll save yourself a lot of time.
that's factually untrue you idiot
It's no factually untrue. Once they stop supporting the expansion of civil/political rights they stop being socially liberal, by definition. They can call themselves socially liberal, but by the definition of social liberalism, they're not.
(note: under the Webster definition of endorsement as it pertains to ideas, you must believe in something to endorse it. This is the distinction between intellectual endorsement and public endorsement
If you look in any dictionary, you'll see that they have different definitions of a word that can be use in different context. Now, if you stop and think for more the 10 seconds you'll realize that every single definition of a word in the dictionary doesn't work for every single sentence or context. So, I pointed out the definition of the word that I was invoking. (that which pertains to abstraction.) I was indicating the definition of endorsement (2a I think) which best fit my sentence. If I need to stop and walk you through how dictionaries work then maybe you should go back to your elementary school English class. You need to just stop and think before you ask stupid questions that you should be able to answer yourself.
I also find it fucking hilarious that as your argument deteriorates, you have to fall back on ad hominin attacks. Keep up the logical fallacies!
So then I'll take it that by "not natural" you mean not innate, i.e. influenced by social factors. I'm not sure if that's completely true or if it's a bit of both, but let's say you're right for now - attraction is developmental. So what? You still can't change whom you find attractive.
If we shift cultural attitudes and messages, yes, future generations will have different and perhaps more inclusive standards for what they find attractive.
For anyone who already exists, and has already been through their formative years, their tastes are set. Recognizing "hey, those are the cultural forces that shaped my psyche, and they're racist" doesn't remove the imprint -- I don't magically become attracted to fat body types just because I've learned on a conscious level that fat shaming is bad, or because I know that depictions of thin women in media shaped my perceptions of attractiveness. My "preferences" are locked in my psyche, and I can't will them away.
Therefore, it's pointless and sloppy to say someone is a racist if they're not attracted to x, y, or z. That attraction is not an opinion, it's not an attitude, it's not a belief. Maybe it's only happening because of exposure to racist messaging during cognitive development, but that doesn't make those people racist.
It entirely does make them racist though. What you're literally saying is "Yes, I may have racist preferences, but I'm not actually racist. That's just the way society made me (my parents raised me, or whatever excuse you want to use.)" As long as you are actively combatting your own prejudice (or "racial preferences" in this context) by first admitting that your preference for pale skin over dark skin is wrong and then trying to reverse the bigotry ingrained in our culture, you are not a racist. But refusing to criticize yourself and deal with your internalized bigotry by stating "it's a view of mine that I can't change." IS ultimately racist.
Yes, your ability to access the internet means that you can look up the definitions right now. And, your past uses of the definitions that I pulled from Webster show evidence that you have done this very thing in the past.
Right, you literally don't know what a positive claim is
Got any proof for that positive claim mate?
Your misuse of the term "positive claim" shows that you don't
know how a positive claim works.
lol this is a new one
No, no it's not. It's the basis for your entire country argument. Do you not even remember what you write?
well you're wrong
According to the information you've given me to work with...it's right.
I think we've gotten to a pivotal moment where you can't actually find a way to counter my argument anymore so you're just stalling for time. It's nice to know that we're close to either blatant bad faith argumentation, or a concession.
326 comments
1 Claymore-2000 2018-03-11
what is the name of the manga?
1 vvvvvvvvvvv11 2018-03-11
TRP comics. I think that's what it is on the bottom right of the pic.
1 Short_Incel_Throw 2018-03-11
Ironically, TRP comics was too RP for r/TRP
1 vvvvvvvvvvv11 2018-03-11
Lol, true. The redpill seems bluepilled af these days compared to us.
1 Short_Incel_Throw 2018-03-11
They were always bluepilled. Any redpill on height, race of facial appearance was deleted and the user blocked. This was since 2015.
Redpill is full of average to above average white guys who just needed to stop being soyboys and stop picking up a big mac every fucking day.
1 dj10show 2018-03-11
Just maintain frame, brah. It was so comical to see how it didn't work for shorter, ethnic men and then have their mods just put them on blast instead of the truth. Needed more followers, I guess?
1 Sniveling_Cur 2018-03-11
don't know if serious
1 wannabe-wonderwoman 2018-03-11
You mean white women?
1 vvvvvvvvvvv11 2018-03-11
No. ALL women.
1 wannabe-wonderwoman 2018-03-11
Lmaoo k
1 ItsReallyYouOnMyMind 2018-03-11
why do you keep saying that?
1 wannabe-wonderwoman 2018-03-11
To show I don't care.
1 fuckin_kiddin_me_rn 2018-03-11
Yeah that's what's wrong with this comic. I don't have any problem with people who choose to date within their race. It's not racist.
1 wannabe-wonderwoman 2018-03-11
Yeah it doesn't make sense
1 leafbitter 2018-03-11
If Mexicans only dated Mexicans or Indians only dated Indians, you’re ok with that endogamy?
1 wannabe-wonderwoman 2018-03-11
I don't care who people date as long as it isn't kids
1 Hopecel 2018-03-11
It is racist / xenophobic.
1 justforlulzandkeks 2018-03-11
BASED black girl, you're also unironically dogpilled
1 wannabe-wonderwoman 2018-03-11
I'm only half black lol
1 fuckitidunno 2018-03-11
Love how biracial girls always say this shit. "No, I'm not really a negro!". That's why woke black chicks are the best.
1 wannabe-wonderwoman 2018-03-11
Yeah but I'm half Asian and Asian looking just as much black. How can I only claim one part of my heritage?
1 fuckitidunno 2018-03-11
Ah, blasian? Well, that's different, I thought you were another half-white chick trying to denigrate her black half to get in good with white folks.
1 wannabe-wonderwoman 2018-03-11
Lmao I can't fw white people. Yeah it's kinda different when you're not mixed with white
1 sailorgangordie 2018-03-11
No, all women. Look at the stats for dating site statistics by race. White males are the most desired race by all race of women.
Of course only the top 20% White Chads really benifit form this but still, white men are the most desired race.
1 wannabe-wonderwoman 2018-03-11
Yet non white men still get into relationships
1 fuckitidunno 2018-03-11
Yeah, with ugly hoes
1 wannabe-wonderwoman 2018-03-11
Nah I've seen some beautiful ass girls with em
1 fuckitidunno 2018-03-11
Beautiful ethnic girls.
1 wannabe-wonderwoman 2018-03-11
Yup
1 behindcloseddoors1 2018-03-11
I guarantee you only date white dudes
1 wannabe-wonderwoman 2018-03-11
No I've only dated one dude and he was Native. Personally I prefer mixed guys and Asian guys, but I'm open to all
1 fuckitidunno 2018-03-11
I bet he was fucking 1/16th Native and didn't even know his tribe
1 wannabe-wonderwoman 2018-03-11
No he's from the Ojibwa tribe
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
Except the guys aren't being swiped into torture camps to be brutalized to death, but otherwise you're right, having preferences is totally just like committing a holocaust.
1 geneticwaste43 2018-03-11
Right just sentenced to a life of isolation and rejection by women.
Much better.
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
Yes. It is much better for a woman to decline to sleep with you then have you tortured to death, starved, burned alive, rape your family to death, etc.
1 geneticwaste43 2018-03-11
Yes it is
1 fuckitidunno 2018-03-11
You really wouldn't. People that say this shit usually don't have a clue how horrific such a fate really is. Trust me, you're better off losing your virginity in your 30s than you would be as a holocaust victim.
1 geneticwaste43 2018-03-11
Dying? Be easy. I'd be dead. Fuck it.
1 fuckitidunno 2018-03-11
It's not the dying part, no, its the grueling torture prior to death. You're a fool if you think being a virgin is worse than the holocaust, a deluded fool.
1 geneticwaste43 2018-03-11
That's coming soon no doubt considering it's illegal to approach women in some countries now (only if you're ugly)
1 fuckitidunno 2018-03-11
In what country is that even a thing?
1 geneticwaste43 2018-03-11
France
1 undeadcel 2018-03-11
this will probably happen very soon, incel genocide is coming
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
i guess we can't complain about segregation because the holocaust was so much worse huh
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
Did you read the comic? I'm not saying you can't complain about anything unless its as bad as the holocaust; I'm saying don't say it's like the holocaust unless it's as bad as the holocaust.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
so i can't say that racial segregation is like the holocaust because it isn't as bad as the holocaust
1 Incel9876 2018-03-11
You can say, people can say many absurb things though. Show me the multi-cultural society that isn't segregated?
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
that's a really cynical way to look at modern western society
and i meant legal segregation, not white flight or whatever
1 Incel9876 2018-03-11
Same thing, whether de facto or de jure (legal), although legal was far better for blacks and didn't create an endless cycle of people moving away from diversity and the government using housing funding to try and force it back in again.
Hillary Clinton, "In America today, our schools are more segregated than they were in the 1960s."
https://medium.com/hillary-for-america/hillary-clinton-we-can-t-hide-from-hard-truths-on-race-96ce2257fe5a
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
i should have realised you weren't the same guy earlier
1 Mr-Mercedes- 2018-03-11
It's passive ethnic cleansing vs genocide
1 Mr-Mercedes- 2018-03-11
It's passive genetic/ethnic-cleansing vs genocide.
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
No, it's not. In terms of intention, magnitude, suffering, and the morality of the decisions involved, it's really not.
"Well it involves some people who I guess can be classified loosely as a group reproducing less" does not make it anything remotely close to, or worth comparing to, a campaign of ethnic cleansing.
Get a fucking grip, please.
1 Mr-Mercedes- 2018-03-11
I never commented on any ethic-differentials between the two concepts.
I was simply pointing out what I believed to be facts.
1 cookin_breakfast 2018-03-11
It's not an argument about who has it worse. the answer is obvious and whoever says the opposite is just meme-ing. the point is that females claim racism is bad, yet they too prefer some races to others as evidenced by their actions.
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
Read some of the other replies to my comment, you'll find highly upvoted posts claiming literally that incels have it as bad or worse.
1 cookin_breakfast 2018-03-11
Right, I saw that and claim they are meme-ing. I already addressed that point. What you failed to address is the quantifiable racism females have when evaluating males. Sure they aren't gassing them, but it the exact racism they shun.
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
I'm not sure on what basis you claim they're joking. When pressed, they're digging in. Indications are that they're serious. But I hope you're right.
As to your second point, I don't think having preferences between races for sexual partners is racism. You can't help whom you find attractive, and declining to sleep with somone isn't a mistreatment. A gay man isn't sexist for not wanting to sleep with women. I'm not an ableist for not being attracted to women with downs syndrome.
Sexual attraction is not necessary to respect someone's personhood and human rights, and abhor their abuse.
1 Eliterit_Reddit_User 2018-03-11
Are you dense? They're literally preferring one race over another. They literally believe one entire group of people is more attractive than another. Replace this with another other characteristic (intelligence, athelitic ability) and it becomes the fucking textbook definition of racism.
1 NightSkyPill 2018-03-11
In this case the woman has different genitals, which changes the entire sexual experience.
How would a different race change the sexual experience? Maybe a different culture would, but that's about it.
She has a right to turn down someone she's not attracted to (I personally think she should), but it's still racism if it's based on race.
If she can consent to sex and perform the activities that you like in bed, then you would technically be an ableist.
It's still your right to reject her.
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
I think the critical difference is that you can't choose what you find attractive. This involves some kind of selection based on racial traits, but the definition of racism require a bit more than that. In this case, there's no element of mistreatment or injustice, so I don't see how it could be considered racism.
1 NightSkyPill 2018-03-11
Sure, these women's rejections aren't institutional, but these women definitely do not believe that all races are equal.
The comic implies that they treated these men differently only because of race. That would be racism, even if it's not harmful and actually beneficial.
Would you say the same thing about friendship? What if I didn't want to be friends with certain races?
You can't really choose which people you enjoy being around, but that's still racist.
All you know in this scenario is that she has Down Syndrome. You rejected her only for that reason.
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
Attraction is a physiological response. It's not a belief about equality or a choice whom to befriend. You cannot choose whom you find attractive.
It's therefore not institutional, not a choice, and not a conviction regarding equality or personhood. It's no different from me not liking freckles, for example - it's just a more sensitive topic.
1 NightSkyPill 2018-03-11
Enjoyment is also a physiological response. That means choosing friends by race is also acceptable.
Yes, people have a right to reject by race. It's better for everyone involved. But if they do this, then they do not really believe every race is equal.
Also, look at the rejection messages in the comic. These men are being abused for their race.
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
Friendship is not an involuntary physiological response. You choose your friends. You don't choose what turns you on.
1 NightSkyPill 2018-03-11
Dating is also not an involuntary physiological response. You choose your significant other. You don't choose what you enjoy platonically either.
So if choosing your significant other by race is not racist, then neither is choosing your friends by race. It's clearly absurd to say that choosing by race is not racist.
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
Ah! But you're not "choosing by race," you're choosing by attraction, and attraction you don't control. There's no involuntary physiological component that mediates whom you should want to befriend in the same same way there is for who you want to sleep with.
1 NightSkyPill 2018-03-11
Yes there is. You want to be friends with people that make you feel happy. Just as you want to have sex with someone who makes you feel aroused. Both of these things are involuntary.
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
There's no comparison here.
Attraction is based largely on physical looks, as we all know. Race often correlates with certain physical traits (skin tone, for example). Thus, race can be relevant to determining attraction - through physical traits.
"Friend happiness" or whatnot has nothing at all to do with looks, so physical traits, including those correlating with race, are strictly irrelevant.
1 fuckitidunno 2018-03-11
Once again, racial preference isn't natural, like, it isn't. Seriously, you think it's just a weird coincidence that most people in the US prefer white males?
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
It "just isn't natural?" What's natural? Is my preference for girls without freckles natural?
1 fuckitidunno 2018-03-11
Perhaps so, perhaps not. Women with freckles are rarely portrayed, yet, they aren't subtly pushed as less attractive.
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
So then I'll take it that by "not natural" you mean not innate, i.e. influenced by social factors. I'm not sure if that's completely true or if it's a bit of both, but let's say you're right for now - attraction is developmental. So what? You still can't change whom you find attractive.
1 fuckitidunno 2018-03-11
Translation
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
Wow.
1 fuckitidunno 2018-03-11
Isn't that what you were saying?
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
I'm saying you cant control who you're attracted to, and wanting to fuck someone isn't an integral part of respecting their dignity and personhood.
1 fuckitidunno 2018-03-11
Ayy lmao
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
Do you need me here for this? You've started making up your own quotes to argue against.
1 fuckitidunno 2018-03-11
I was just translating your liberal bs, trying to figure out whether minorities are inferior. No, they fucking aren't, btw, but I guess it's natural for women to see us as hideous monsters in your eyes. And if a woman tells a black man she wouldn't date a "filthy n*gger" I bet you'd defend her to the death.
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
Oh please. Save your fake outrage, we both know I said nothing like that.
Do you think you can choose what you find attractive? I find obese women unattractive. Can I change that?
1 fuckitidunno 2018-03-11
Yes
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
How?
1 fuckitidunno 2018-03-11
Put your penis in one.
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
And that would make me find her attractive how, exactly?
Or how about super pale soon and freckles, the classic ginger look. I don't like it at all. Am I racist against the Irish for not fucking an Irish girl to magically change my preference?
1 fuckitidunno 2018-03-11
Yes, yes you are, you think the Irish are inferior because you think their traits are disgusting. What, you thought I'd not be stubborn? No, I usually would concede by now, but, I'd rather be a dick ;P
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
My attraction or lack thereof doesn't mean I "think" anything. There's no thinking involved. Attraction isn't a thought or a belief. It's an involuntary physiological response to stimuli that you cannot control.
1 Eliterit_Reddit_User 2018-03-11
Not being attracted to obese people is not the same as completely not being attracted to every single Black person, Asian etc.
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
Prejudice requires a judgement, belief, or conviction. Attraction is none of those. Stop trying to superimpose race politics onto involuntary physiological responses.
1 Eliterit_Reddit_User 2018-03-11
We already went over this. A preference in race is the preconception (a bias based on race) that a person of a different race is going to be unattractive. It's conceived opinion, or prejudice.
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
See my other response. We're not talking about people assuming they won't be attracted. We're talking about people who are not attracted.
1 Eliterit_Reddit_User 2018-03-11
You literally just admitted that sexual attraction is influenced and developed by culture and social factors and then claimed you can't change it.
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
You can change it as a society and culture over time, sure. But to my knowledge, these things develop very young and during formative years. Can an adult just will himself to find different things attractive?
1 Eliterit_Reddit_User 2018-03-11
Yes, every adult has the ability to stop generalizing every single POC and assume they're going to be unattractive to them.
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
When you edit the quote to answer a question you wished I asked, instead of what I did, that's not great dialogue.
We're talking about people who tend not to experience attraction to people belonging to certain racial groups (i.e. we're not talking about people assuming they wouldn't be attracted, and we're not talking about some no exceptions, 100% rule). There are people who simply have these preferences. Whatever gave them those preferences, it's not something I think they can control.
Attraction is not a judgement, it's an involuntary physiological response. Nor do you have to be attracted to someone to respect their dignity and rights, and so I see no basis to call it racist if, for example, a man tends to not be attracted to Asian women.
1 Eliterit_Reddit_User 2018-03-11
I didn't edit the quote, I specified what you were asking. That is, if it is possible to change what races you are attracted to. Being not attracted to fat people is not the same as not being attracted to Black people or Asians etc. I'm just about done talking with your dumb ignorant white ass.
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
Why not? Whether it's innate or whether it was imprinted on you at a young age due to social influences, you can't help what you find physically attractive. Or (I'll ask again) do you think someone can will him or herself to change what they find attractive, and if so, how? (note, we're *not** talking about people merely assuming what they'll find attractive before actually looking at a person)*
1 Eliterit_Reddit_User 2018-03-11
Considering your "racial preference" is based on ignorance, yes, it could be changed with education, realizing that it is literally impossible to find every single black and Asian man unattractive unless you're a racist. This preference is largely based on the racial stereotype that all Asians and black men are going to look the same, and with time, this preconception can away.
Stop trying to change the goalposts. Or do you now agree that people who exclude 100% of blacks or Asians on their dating profiles are racist?
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
I'm not changing the goalposts. You barged in arguing against point no one was making. We were talking in broad terms about the physiological phenomenon of being less or not attracted to certain races, which is certainly not "literally impossible."
That's critically different from the specific behaviour of people who, a priori, "exclude 100% of blacks or Asians on their dating profiles." My goalposts are exactly where they've always been. You've simply brought your own and insist I use them.
1 Eliterit_Reddit_User 2018-03-11
Okay just so we're clear
This was your claim that I'm arguing against.
And I'll repeat myself again, a preference for race is racism. Because you are prefering an entire group of people, based on race, over another. Doesn't this sound like the perfect example of racism?
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
No, it does not, because in the sentence you quote, the word "preference" is referring only to the experience of tending to feel attraction to X but not Y. People may tend to not be attracted to dark skin, for example. It's uncomfortable, but it's not a judgement or a belief, and not something I believe an individual can control. It is comparable to my tending not to find freckles attractive.
1 Eliterit_Reddit_User 2018-03-11
Why might someone find dark skin innately unattractive? Surely there are some cultural factors at play that perhaps lead to someone developing such a distaste for a physical characteristic commonly found in people of African descent. You honestly don't believe that the racist Eurocentric beauty standards constantly pushed into the media has massively influenced what featuress people find unattractive or attractive in the west?
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
As I've said two or three times now, maybe it has. That could also be true of why I don't find fat attractive either. How do you suggest an individual go back in time to change whatever factors shaped their perceptions and tastes?
1 Eliterit_Reddit_User 2018-03-11
Maybe what? Racism HAS shaped their racial preferences. I've already told you, racial preferences are based on the prejudice that blacks and Asians are unattractive when compared to whites. Ignorance and prejudice is entirely solvable by education. Recognizing that blacks and Asians CAN be as attractive as whites. I'm not suggesting you go back in time.
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
Me personally? I don't have such preferences (except for maybe against the Irish, freckles and all that).
But you keep saying "opinions." What opinions? Physical attraction is not an opinion. If a woman doesn't find dark complexions attractive, that isn't an opinion. She don't need to meet someone to know if she finds him hot; she just needs to see him. It's a physiological reaction. I've pointed this our half a dozen times now, but you keep refusing to address the difference between thoughts/beliefs and involuntary neurochemical responses.
How does one simply will herself to have different tastes?
1 Eliterit_Reddit_User 2018-03-11
But our ideas, opinions of attractiveness is innately tied to the involuntary response of hormones. What I'm saying is that the idea of what someone considers attractive, IS an opinion. It's subjective and it's shaped by culture. If the idea of what people consider attractive can be changed, our physiological response would follow suit.
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
If we shift cultural attitudes and messages, yes, future generations will have different and perhaps more inclusive standards for what they find attractive.
For anyone who already exists, and has already been through their formative years, their tastes are set. Recognizing "hey, those are the cultural forces that shaped my psyche, and they're racist" doesn't remove the imprint -- I don't magically become attracted to fat body types just because I've learned on a conscious level that fat shaming is bad, or because I know that depictions of thin women in media shaped my perceptions of attractiveness. My "preferences" are locked in my psyche, and I can't will them away.
Therefore, it's pointless and sloppy to say someone is a racist if they're not attracted to x, y, or z. That attraction is not an opinion, it's not an attitude, it's not a belief. Maybe it's only happening because of exposure to racist messaging during cognitive development, but that doesn't make those people racist.
1 Eliterit_Reddit_User 2018-03-11
It entirely does make them racist though. What you're literally saying is "Yes, I may have racist preferences, but I'm not actually racist. That's just the way society made me (my parents raised me, or whatever excuse you want to use.)" As long as you are actively combatting your own prejudice (or "racial preferences" in this context) by first admitting that your preference for pale skin over dark skin is wrong and then trying to reverse the bigotry ingrained in our culture, you are not a racist. But refusing to criticize yourself and deal with your internalized bigotry by stating "it's a view of mine that I can't change." IS ultimately racist.
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
Fetishes, kinks, "types," tastes, and the things we find attractive or not are embedded in us at a very young age. There's nothing we can do to change them, and we didn't choose them. So merely having those tastes isn't an act of racism.
What everyone's duty is to reflect, think critically, and make change for future generations is a completely different discussion. I've made no claims whatsoever on those issues. My point is - and has been for this entire thread - limited to the above paragraph.
1 Eliterit_Reddit_User 2018-03-11
We're not talking about fetishes, we're explicitly talking about "racial preferences" stop trying to change the subject.
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
I haven't changed the subject. I've listed additional things this applies to.
Not being attracted to certain physical traits (including racial traits such as complexion, or non racial ones like body shape, breast size...) is about the images we're exposed to in our formative years (as you have insisted). Sometimes those images are discriminatory. The effects of that aren't chosen and can't be controlled by am individual. Therefore, merely having such preferences isn't an act of racism.
What we need to do about it as a society, and whether people should be critical of their development are other questions.
My point couldn't be more clear and straightforward. Please stop "retranslating" or trying to catch me in a "gotcha."
1 fuckitidunno 2018-03-11
Lmao, how in the ever loving fuck have Americans convinced themselves that their racial preferences are completely natural when their media constantly pushes the idea that white people are more beautiful than everyone else.
1 idespisewomen 2018-03-11
stay mad currycel
i wouldn't move to india and then be upset indian women weren't attracted to me
stay in your poo country and papa will arrange a marriage for u
1 vvvvvvvvvvv11 2018-03-11
I was born here, and have no control over that, you dunce.
1 idespisewomen 2018-03-11
stay away from white women and stop talking about a race and culture that isn't yours
1 vvvvvvvvvvv11 2018-03-11
This isn't just white women, ALL woman act like this. Why would I go for whites before pursuing my own race? I still live in an area with mostly people of my own race. You sound like the 15 year old girl who commented here.
1 NightSkyPill 2018-03-11
These same white women don't care for you at all. Yet here you are "protecting" them.
That makes you a cuckold, a bigger cuckold than most men on IncelTears.
1 mewtwokillsarceus 2018-03-11
Lol, your countries colonized us and made us poor when were 30% of world gdp.
We’re only “lesser” in terms of SMV because of sustained poverty over generations caused by colonization.
If you keep that attitude, we’ll have no problem colonising you instead of supporting you against China
1 idespisewomen 2018-03-11
blackmail, nice
also
lol do u even see how you are making my case for me
1 nerocon 2018-03-11
So a woman has to lower he standards to please someone she doesn't find physically attractive? You sir are not a braincel.
1 vvvvvvvvvvv11 2018-03-11
Yep. If not, I don't see how they can be considering 'caring, nurturing, sympathetic, compassionate' like you all claim they are.
1 nerocon 2018-03-11
I am incel btw.I don't claim they are.
1 xplodingducks 2018-03-11
Hold up - you’re saying a woman should sacrifice her happiness for you?
1 vvvvvvvvvvv11 2018-03-11
I said they wouldn't. I know that for a fact.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
oh please having sex with an incel won't destroy a woman's happiness you drama queen
1 xplodingducks 2018-03-11
No, but if a woman doesn’t want to date you, that’s her choice. Now are you arguing that there should be a dialogue about making society less looks centered, or government mandated prostitution?
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
i am literally just saying that having sex with an incel won't destroy a woman's happiness
1 xplodingducks 2018-03-11
Yeah, but she shouldn’t have to have sex with you if she doesn’t want to. Because they have a word for that.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
chores?
1 xplodingducks 2018-03-11
R A P E
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
so if a woman is peer pressured into sex that's rape
1 xplodingducks 2018-03-11
No, if she does not have a choice in it or is forced in to it, that is rape.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
so if a woman chooses to have sex with a guy because if she doesn't all her friends will mock her for being a prude, that's rape?
1 xplodingducks 2018-03-11
No, if she doesn’t have a choice in the matter, that’s rape. What you’re calling for is removing the choice factor. And if her friends make fun of her for being a prude, she needs to find new friends.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
she can choose to have all her friends mock her for being a prude
wrong
1 xplodingducks 2018-03-11
I would hope this girl has better friends than that then!
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
in conclusion, choosing to have sex due to peer pressure isn't rape
1 xplodingducks 2018-03-11
What’s your point man? What do you say we should do?
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
use peer pressure to encourage women to choose to have sex with incels
1 xplodingducks 2018-03-11
So... be an asshole willingly to women? Basically take the idea of stress and peer pressure (which is a negative term) to get them to please you? How in the world do you think that’ll make you happy? Plenty of depressed people have sex.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
but think of how much it would mean to incels
1 xplodingducks 2018-03-11
Sex won’t make them happy. Trust me.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
no
1 xplodingducks 2018-03-11
You think it will? Good luck. People have sex and still kill them selves
1 Board_Gaming 2018-03-11
No amount of peer pressure will "encourage" me to have sex with random guys.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
lol someone reported this
1 Board_Gaming 2018-03-11
Having sex with an incel won't destroy her happiness if she wants to have sex with an incel.
Being forced is a different matter; let's not go there.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
no one said anything about force
1 Yemanthing 2018-03-11
Hold up - you're saying me, a man should sacrifice my happiness for you? See how it's the same thing. It's just a different person suffering and it hurts more to die alone than to date someone who isn't the fucking incredible hulk. So honestly, fuck your happiness. I want to not be miserable for fucking 50 years and die in agony. Fuck that and fuck you.
1 fuckitidunno 2018-03-11
Are you implying men of other races are automatically less attractive?
1 nerocon 2018-03-11
for indians to white woman yes.
1 ingloriousnutsack 2018-03-11
if you arent tyrone, chadpreet or chang and instead are ethnic normie/incel this is fully accurate.
1 Face-Hit-By-A-Lorry 2018-03-11
Don't forget Chaddam.
1 Cristalline144hz 2018-03-11
Not white but that comic is dumb.
You can't choose your sexual attraction. Yeah they are attracted to people that look like them, whatever.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
women don't look like 6' 5 white guys lol
children didn't choose to be indoctrinated with nazi propaganda in the hitler youth, i guess we shouldn't criticize the hitler youth huh
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
no....no we shouldn't.... we should criticize the ideas they held
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
right, ideas like antisocial sexual choices
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
explain
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
women choosing not let incels fuck them is antisocial, yes?
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
No, social behavior does not end with sex. You could be platonically social.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
No, social liberalism doesn't end with racial equality. You could have segregation.
that's how evil you sound rn
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Actually, by the definition of "Social Libralism" it does include racial equality.
"Social liberalism (also known as modern liberalism in the U.S.)[1] is a political ideology that endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights, and also believes that the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care and education."
Note the "expansion of civil and political rights"
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
you can expand civil rights and still have racial segregation if civil rights are already at a nadir
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
That implies that you intend to expand civil rights to up to some predetermined point. But, the definition of social liberalism includes no specified end, only expansion. Can you find me a definition that claims that social liberalism ends at segregation?
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
it doesn't say indefinite expansion either
you could expand only a bit and still fit that definition of social liberalism
can you find me a definition that says it can't
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
No you couldn't. Again, the definition says that social liberalism seeks expansion of rights. Once you stop expanding rights you stop being socially liberal.
"Social liberalism (also known as modern liberalism in the U.S.)[1] is a political ideology that endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights..."
It seeks the expansion of rights. If you stop seeking the expansion of rights, then you are not socially liberal.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
how is a statement that is factually true like "it doesn't say this" an assumption
it actually says
it endorses the expansion of civil rights, that doesn't mean it actually expands them
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Just because the sentence is factually true, doesn't mean it is logically sound. You're playing with semantics instead logic.
For example, I could say that definition of the Big Bang is "the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe."
You could say "well that doesn't say that matter will expand infinitely." And that's true, but if matter is not expanding then the state of the Big Bang is over. The definition of the big bang can't be applied to that situation.
If we take this to social liberalism. It is true that in reality civil rights might not expand infinitely. But, if you stop endorsing the expansion of civil rights, then you have left the state of "social liberalism" and the definition can no longer be applied.
Okay, well when you stop endorsing the expansion of civil rights (aka stopping endorsing segregation over the expansion of civil rights) then you are no longer social liberal. To put segregation into effect, you must first endorse it, so if you put segregation into effect you no longer endorse the expansion of civil rights and are no longer socially liberal.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
what the fuck does this have to do with anything you fucking fortune cookie
i'm pointing out that you're using words wrong
the definition of the big bang is "the rapid expansion of matter"
the definition of social liberalism is NOT "the expansion of civil rights"
you can implement segregation without endorsing it, it's called lying
i'm starting to think you're actually stupid
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
That's a beautiful argument there mate
I think this point flew over your head. Social liberalism is an ideology, it can't act on it's own. But, people can act IN ACCORDANCE with the ideology. So, if a person is not endorsing (as in, personally believing) the expansion of civil rights, they are not acting in accordance with social liberalism, therefore the definition of social liberalism can't be applied to them.
You're using 2 different definitions of the word "endorse" it's another definition fallacy. The one you're trying to use would be called "public endorsement", which would be equivalent to lying.
But, we're talking about ideological endorsement. This is synonymous with "belief." Because, if you are a member of an ideology, like social liberalism, then, by definition, you hold the beliefs of that ideology.
Because, in this discussion, we're dealing with actual beliefs and not just what people say they believe , public endorsement can't be invoked and isn't even applicable. (Note: if we were talking about endorsement in action instead of endorsement in personal belief, this discussion would be rendered pointless because anyone can lie about anything. So your entire argument, that social liberalism can end in segregation, would be moot. This is because any ideology could just lied about and used to justify anything.) So the statement you wrote here is....just kinda dumb.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
oh please
what the fuck does this have to do with your retarded shit about the big bang
NO FUCK OFF
you are the dumbest fucking person i've ever met
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Nice job addressing the argument there mate
The big bang was an example to help you understand what I was talking about. Note how I said "For example"
well that's constructive
Bro, that's the second definition. If you look in the GOD DAMN Meriam Webster dictionary and go to definition 2a (because definitions 1a-e all deal with financial endorsement) you will find that endorsement can also be defined as "to approve openly." And incase you don't understand what "approve" means, the Meriam Webster dictionary defines it "as to take a favorable view".
So, a social liberal must, by definition, openly take a favorable view of the expansion of civil and political rights. When a person stops taking a favorable view of the expansion of civil and political rights, they are no longer a social liberal.
Now, if someone says that they are a social liberal but do not take a favorable view of the expansion of civil and political rights (that is to say, they act in a way that is inconsistent with the expansion of civil and political rights etc. segregation) then they are not truly a social liberal and can't be invoked in this argument.
So that's how incels respond when they can't attack your argument. Didn't know you were a little braincel. laughs in norman
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
your example was the worst analogy i've ever seen, i even pointed out how it was awful and you just ignored it
that literally means public endorsement, what else do you think open approval is
PUBLIC ENDORSEMENT YOU CRETIN
PUBLIC ENDORSEMENT
no it fucking isn't to say, "not taking a favourable view of civil rights" does not mean "acting inconsistently with civil rights"
ETCETERA SEGREGATION
ETCETERA SEGREGATION
LMAO
i have attacked your argument you goddamn retard, you're just too much of a moron to realise it
and i swear to god if you drop le master trole on me i don't even care because you've put far too much effort into this word salad than i have rebutting it
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
I'd like to go on record and say that you didn't point out why you didn't understand my example. You just said "what the fuck does this have to do with your retarded shit about the big bang." That doesn't make a value claim about the example or explain what's wrong with it.
You will note that I defined "approval". Meriam Webster defines it as "to take a favorable view." I can't help you if you're just going to ignore definitions.
See my definition of approval. You will note that what a person says and what they actually approve of can be two different things.
Again, the definition of endorsement doesn't necessarily make it public. (the fact that you felt the need to add the qualifying "public" to "public endorsement" demonstrates this principle very nicely) I refer you to the Merriam Webster definition of "endorsement" and "approve"
But, if you act inconstantly with the expansion of civil rights, then that indicates that you do not have a favorable view of the expansion of civil rights. If you did have a favorable view of the expansion of civil rights, then you would act in accordance with this belief. While the two statements (taking a favorable view, vs acting inconstantly) are not the same, the lack of the first is what causes the other. The are casually linked.
I meant "eg." , I guess typing "etc." is habit. But I see you made a nice ad hominin out my typo. Good for you.
I guess I should have made a distinction between "attacking" an argument and "making a valid point" about an argument.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
yeah i pointed out how it was awful
that's not my comment responding to your big bang comment is it
it isn't approval it's OPEN approval
endorsement is open approval, i.e. public approval
you're the one who brought up these other kinds of endorsements that don't have anything to do with anything
the rest of this is you not understanding what endorsement means
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Yes, it is open/public approval. So, you must openly/publicly take a favorable view. This doesn't really change my argument at all.
In case you forgot, the argument goes like this.
**1a*: If you area a social liberal, you must endorse the idea of the expansion of civil and political rights.
1b: The definition of endorse is to "openly approve" or something.
1c: the definition of approve is to " take a favorable view".
1d: the definition of open is to be "exposed to general view or knowledge"
Therefore: If you are a social liberal, you must expose your favorable view of the idea, of the expansion of civil and political rights, to the general view or knowledge. (note: under the Webster definition of endorsement as it pertains to ideas, you must believe in something to endorse it. This is the distinction between intellectual endorsement and public endorsement.)
2a:If you are a social liberal, you must expose your favorable view of the idea, of the expansion of civil and political rights, to the general view or knowledge.
2b: If you are a social liberal you must have a favorable view of the expansion of civil/political rights.
2c: Segregation ends the expansion of civil/political rights.
2b: If you are openly favorable to the expansion of civil/political rights then you cannot be in support of segregation. (because it ends the expansion of civil/political rights)
Therefore: If you are a social liberal you cannot support segregation.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
i'm going to add the actual webster definitions
approve: "to have or express a favorable opinion of"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/approve
using the actual webster definition you must EXPRESS a favourable opinion of the expansion of civil/political rights.
seeing that nowhere anywhere
even using your shitty premises, why does favouring A mean you can't support something that ends A
you can't even use logic properly
logic aside, many social liberals in the 19th century supported eugenics and racial segregation
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Yes, you do express it. The definition of "express" is "directly, firmly, and explicitly stated." I mean, that's the only definition that's actually applicable. To say something false is not expression but deception.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/express
So, if we take into account the definition of the word express, we come to: "To directly, firmly, and explicitly state a favorable view of the expansion of civil/political rights."
So my argument is sound.
Simple, once you favor something that ends A, you no longer favor A. For example: Imagine you start out favoring segregation. Then you change your mind and favor the ending segregation. Now, you are no longer favoring segregation. Even if you support a bill that would end segregation in the future, by supporting the destruction of segregation, at any point, you now favor something else over segregation. You can't logically favor the existence of something and favor it's destruction at the same time.
In the 19th century segregation would have been an expansion of civil/political rights from slavery. But, once one had achieved segregation, they would need to abolish it and favor equality in order to keep being a social liberal. If they stopped favoring expansion, they would stop being a social liberal.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
no it fucking isn't you're too stupid to live
that doesn't mean you have to believe a favourable view you idiot
idiot
you said support, not favour you fucking weasel
you just changed support into favour you cretin, don't use autism logic if you can't even keep your language consistent
and this isn't even true, hypocrisy exists
that's factually untrue you idiot, also you ignored this;
seeing that nowhere anywhere
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
No, No, No, you don't get to change definitions just because you don't like them. The definition given in the dictionary doesn't give room for "expression" to be false. That's just you misusing of the word.
You'll note that the other half of the definition of explicitly states that you do in deed have to HAVE the favorable opinion. Let's look at the definition again, "Approve: to have or express a favorable opinion of". You can't just cherry pick the parts of definitions that you like, it's intellectually dishonest. (Then against I'm talking to an incel, and your entire philosophy is built on intellectual dishonesty.)
I was using support as a synonym for favor. If you can't make that mental leap go back to grade school.
Just to hammer it in, lets look at definitions. If you go the dictionary and look up Favor, you'll find this 3a:"to give SUPPPORT or confirmation to." The definition of favor... is to support something. If you just go and fucking google things you'll save yourself a lot of time.
It's no factually untrue. Once they stop supporting the expansion of civil/political rights they stop being socially liberal, by definition. They can call themselves socially liberal, but by the definition of social liberalism, they're not.
If you look in any dictionary, you'll see that they have different definitions of a word that can be use in different context. Now, if you stop and think for more the 10 seconds you'll realize that every single definition of a word in the dictionary doesn't work for every single sentence or context. So, I pointed out the definition of the word that I was invoking. (that which pertains to abstraction.) I was indicating the definition of endorsement (2a I think) which best fit my sentence. If I need to stop and walk you through how dictionaries work then maybe you should go back to your elementary school English class. You need to just stop and think before you ask stupid questions that you should be able to answer yourself.
I also find it fucking hilarious that as your argument deteriorates, you have to fall back on ad hominin attacks. Keep up the logical fallacies!
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH
YOU CAN EXPRESS SOMETHING THAT IS FALSE
have OR express, not have AND express
you're too fucking stupid to understand words
so you use hyper autistic logical proofs but get to use random synonyms
DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT "OR" MEANS YOU FUCKING IDIOT
YOU COULD HAVE MEANT GIVING CONFIRMATION
segregation STOPS the expansion of civil rights
supporting segregation DOESN'T STOP the expansion of civil rights
YOU DUMB FUCKSTAIN
so you admit that you're just picking the definition that fits your "argument", NOT THE COMMON DEFINITION WHICH is obviously what the orginal definition of social liberlaism is referring to
BNUH BUH BUH YOU NEED TO USE MY DEFINITION THAT I PICKED OTHERWISE MY ARGUMENT DOESN'T WORK
endorse means political endorsement, if you don't accept this then you are not having a discussion in good faith you total moron
saying you are too stupid to exist is a statement of fact, not an ad hominem, you are LITERALLY too stupid to understand my points which is why you think my argument is "deteriorating"
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
I meant to say approve in that sentence. I was typing this thing out before I went to work and I confused the words.
Again, you can't ignore half of definition. What ever statement you make still needs to remain internally consistent. If you don't do this, then the word "approve" looses all meaning.
Nice ad hominem
Actually by the definition of confirmation is "2b : the process of SUPPORTING a statement by evidence." So support would still have worked in this sentence and meaning wouldn't have changed. Again, just go out and google the words you're trying to use.
But if you support segregation, then you don't support the expansion of civil rights. Therefore, you're not socially liberal. I don't see what you were trying to prove here.
Nice ad hominem
No, I'm picking the definition that makes grammatical sense.
A: can you prove that there is some kind of "common definition" that exists outside of the dictionary?
B: can you prove that your "common definition" is what the original definition of social liberal was referring to?
No, you need to use the definition found in the dictionary. Both you and I have been using the Meriam Webster definitions this entire time and it's bad faith to randomly change that standard now.
No, the original definition doesn't say "politically endorse" it just says "endorse" so we have to use the definition of "endorse." That's how logic works. You can't just add modifiers to a word until it agrees with you.
Nice ad hominin
Believe it or not, even if that's true, it's still an ad hominin fallacy. Note the Merriam Webster definition of ad hominin "2a: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made." For all your bluster, you're not very good at googling things.
The growing number of ad hominin fallacies only indicates that your faulty reasoning has failed you and now you need to turn to personal attacks so that you can preserve your pride. Though, as an Incel, I doubt there is very much of that.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
NO THAT'S NOT HOW "OR" WORKS
STATEMENT OF FACT
SUPPORTING BY EVIDENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS SUPPORTING YOU IDIOT
GRAMMATICAL SENSE IN YOUR MORONIC POST
I WAS MOCKING YOU WOU DUMB DUMB DUMBASS
i meant to say public endorsement but all your dumb dumbness made me misspeak
endorse means public endorsement, that is the standard definition and clearly what was meant in the definition of social liberalism
not "ideological endorsement"
I'M NOT ATTACKING YOU RATHER THAN ANSWERING YOUR CONTENTIONS I'M ATTACKING YOU AS WELL AS ANSWERING YOUR CONTENTION DIPSHIT FUCK SHIT FUCKER
NO IT INDICATES THAT YOU ARE TOO FUCKING STUPID TO KNOW HOW FUCKING STUPID YOU ARE AND IT'S ANNOYING ME
RAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGHJH+
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
It's an issue of the nature of the word "or", it's an issue of the nature of definitions. The way you use or makes it seem like a difference in context (the difference between definition 1a and 1b) but this isn't the case. In this definition, or is used a qualifier. It shows that there are situations where clause 1 of the definition might not apply, and situations where clause 2 of the definition might not apply. BUT, you can't contradict either one of those clauses and still apply the definition. If you could, the word would be rendered meaningless. Because of this, the "or" is irrelevant in the context at hand.
even if it is a statement of fact, it's still an Ad hominem fallacy
Can you give me an example where supporting something based on evidence does not fall into the definition of supporting something? "Support" is an umbrella term that "supporting based on evidence" falls under.
No, just grammatical sense in general. You can't ignore grammar and still have a coherent argument.
No..."endorse" means "endorse". And the word endorse is clearly defined in the dictionary, and does not run against my argument. The standard definition of endorse is indeed the one found in the dictionary that we have been using this entire time. Again, you can't randomly ad qualifiers to a word until it agrees with out, that's clear bad faith.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
wrong
supporting does not fall into the category of supporting based on evidence
you fucking liar
you have literally said that endorsement means ideological endorsement you stupid liar
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Can you explain why this is wrong? Or has your argument fallen apart so much that the only thing you can do is incoherently mumble one word answers?
Again, you can't contradict the definition of a word and still claim that your situation fits within that words meaning.
The is litteraly the opposite of what I said. I asked "Can you give me an example where supporting something based on evidence does not fall into the definition of supporting something?" Try again.
Again, this doesn't really tell me anything. Why are you all of a sudden rejecting the definition that we have been using for this entire argument? Is it because your realizing that words, as they are defined, don't agree with your argument and you need to twist them?
Alright, well I concede that endorse does not mean "ideological endorsement". Endorsement has the definition that is presented in the dictionary. A definition that both of us have been using up to now. And, endorsement, as it is defined in the dictionary, supports my argument.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
i can contradict either one of those clauses and still apply the definition
i'm not contradicting the definition of a word
yeah because you're an idiot
i'm saying that SUPPORTING BY EVIDENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS SUPPORTING because supporting does not fall into the category of supporting based on evidence
what definition because i know for fucking sure you haven't been defining endorsement as public endorsement
idiot
just because i publicly endorse the expansion of civil rights doesn't mean i have to expand civil rights or that i can't act against the expansion of civil rights
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Well, strictly speaking, you can, but then you are no longer acting in accordance with logic. In logic, a definition cannot be applied to a statement that contradicts the definition in any way.
You're use of the word "approve' contradicts the definition of the word "approve".
True. But I would like to point out 2 things.
1: I only wrote support as a typo 2: It still doenst invalidate my use of the word support, despite the fact that is was a typo.
But because we're arguing over the definition of a typo, I suggest we stop addressing the definition of the word "support." I'll even concede the point if it make you happy. It's just a waist of time.
The definition in the Merriam Webster dictionary. And you can't define "endorsement" and "public endorsement." "Public endorsement" a modified, and therefore more specialized, version of the word "endorsement".
Now, the definition of social liberalism doesn't say "public endorsement" it just says "endorse". Because of this, we have to use the definition of "endorse." And that is, "to approve openly." It's the definition that both you and I have been using. And, we've already explored why that definition agrees with me.
defensive ad hominin
Simple, the definition of social liberalism doesn't say you have to public endorse the expansion of civil rights. It says you have to endorse the expansion of civil rights. And "endorse" is defined as "to approve openly". And, we've already explored why that definition disagrees with my argument.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
then let's speak strictly
not strictly, as you've just said
uh huh
give me a refresher
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Well, if you do that then you're no longer using logic. So, for the sake of a coherent argument, we shouldn't.
Do you know what strictly speaking means, or are you joking?
Just look in the Meriam Webster dictionary
Gladly
**1a*: If you area a social liberal, you must endorse the idea of the expansion of civil and political rights.
1b: The definition of endorse is to "openly approve" of something.
1c: the definition of approve is to " take a favorable view". (note: if you express a view that is different from the view you hold, you are no longer "approving". That would contradict the first clause of the definition)
1d: the definition of open is to be "exposed to general view or knowledge"
Therefore: If you are a social liberal, you must expose your favorable view, of the idea of the expansion of civil and political rights, to the general view or knowledge.
2a:If you are a social liberal, you must expose your favorable view of the idea, of the expansion of civil and political rights, to the general view or knowledge.
2b: If you are a social liberal you must have a favorable view of the expansion of civil/political rights.
2c: Segregation is an idea that, if enforced, would end the expansion of civil/political rights.
2d: If you favor segregation then you favor the end of the expansion of civil/political rights.
2e: If you are openly favorable to the expansion of civil/political rights then you cannot be in support of segregation. (because it is an idea which, if implemented, would end the expansion of civil/political rights)
Therefore: If you are a social liberal you cannot support segregation.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
it's not a random figure of speech you tiring moron
NO FUCK OFF YOU LITERALLY SAID "strictly speaking, you can contradict either clause"
don't literally regurgitate the same shit you've stepped away from and that i've disproven
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Well I mean, it is a figure of speech. Honestly, it's a rhetorical joke. Strictly speaking means speaking in a precise and literal way. That is to say, you could write a sentence where a word contradicts it's own definition, you could say a sentence where a word contradicts it's own definition, and you could think a sentence where a word contradicts it's own definition. Strictly speaking, in a precise and literal way, all of these are possible. But logically speaking, they're not.
When discussing ideas and things in the abstract, strict speech tends to fall short because it deals with the literal. That's why people invented logic. Logic allows one to deal with abstractions and proofs.
So when you say
You're correct in the literal sense. You can put pen to paper and write a sentence that contradicts the clause. But, this sentence wouldn't be logically valid.
If I knew you didn't know what "strictly speaking meant" I wouldn't' have made that joke.
And you actually haven't disproven my argument. You tried to attack some of the premises, but failed to actually invalidate any of them.
Though, if you think you've disproven it, I'm all ears. (that means I'm listening to you. Please don't take that turn of phrase as heavily as you too "strictly speaking".)
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
reread the whole thread
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
give me a refresher
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
no
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Then you surrender. Which makes sense seeing as how you failed to invalidate any of my points.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
no just reread the whole thread
there's no point arguing with someone who's literally stupid
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
I wrote the thread. In the thread you failed to invalidate my argument. Now you're trying to preserve your pride by dismissing me instead of making a coherent counter argument. You litter looked at the last scentence of my comment and tried to bail.
You have nothing, you're gasping for air, and now you're putting your tail between your legs and trying to make a dishonest break for it.
Now if I'm wrong, then tell me exactly where my argument fails.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
because you're stupid
no because you lack any ability to understand anything i've said
BECAUSE YOU ARE FUCKING STUPID
anyone who reads this thread will not come to that conclusion you lazy idiot
LITERALLY
READ
THE
THREAD
YOU HAVE REPOSTED THE SAME THING YOU POSTED IN THE BEGINNING LIKE NOTHING HAS HAPPENED
READ THE THREAD
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Obviously the thread isn't enough. So, instead of coping out by telling me to read the thread, why don't you explain why I'm wrong.
Because again, you've failed to make a valid argument.
And just saying "you're dumb" is a cop-out. Frankly it's the sign of defeat.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
that obviously means you're too stupid to understand how the thread makes you stupid
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
If you actually go back and look at the thread, you'll note that the only thing we did after I posted my formal statement of the argument was explore an issue you had with the definition of the word "approve". Then I made a joke about the turn of phrase "strictly speaking" which you some how took literally.
That's all that's happened since I state the formal argument. You haven't disproven anything about it. You haven't even invalidated the premise that you tried to attack after I posed it.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
do you accept that approving something means "EXPRESSING a favourable view of it" and not "taking a favorable view of something"
please say no
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
The definition of approve you must take and express and favorable view when ever applicable. That's how an "or" clause works in a definition. If a situation arises when you can only apply one, then you can ignore the other. But, in situations like this, when you can apply both clauses, you have to apply both. Anything else violates the definition of the word. This is basic symbolic logic.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
i hope whatever idiot is upvoting you now realises the kind of shit i had to deal with
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
I mean, it's basic symbolic logic. If you didn't pay attention to your middle school reasoning class, I can't help you.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
you didn't get those definitions through symbolic logic did you though
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
No, but symbolic logic requires definitions to function.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
that doesn't mean you can apply symbolic logic to definitions that aren't derived from symbolic logic
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Symbolic doesn't create definitions. It just determines the laws of debate.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
logic is literally about inferring definitions through premises you idiot
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Now, did you get to that definition of logic by logically inferring it? No, logic is how we infer conclusions from premises. But in order to do that, we need to pull definitions from outside of logic. Just like you just pulled a definition of logic from a source that was not your own symbolic reasoning.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
then why are you applying symbolic logic to a definition that is outside of logic
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Because that's how logic works. There are no definitions that exists entirely inside of logic. Even your definition of logic does not exits inside of logic, it was created within the discipline of Lexicography. But, because it is a definition, it can be used in logic. Any definition can be used in logic as long as it is sourced properly and logically sound. That's why something like the Meriam Webster dictionary can be used to generate premises in symbolic logic.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
that doesn't mean you should apply the rules of symbolic logic to it
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Yes it does, symbolic logic necessitates the use of definitions that originate from outside of itself. Logic, by itself, cannot generate it's own definitions.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
you shouldn't apply symbolic logic to premises because premises are outside logic
do you agree with this statement
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
No. Logic a tool, like a knife. That's like saying you shouldn't use a knife to cur fruit because fruits originate outside of knifes.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
this is the shittiest analogy ever, try again
but i am impressed at your ability to come up with this stuff
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Alright, lets attack this in another way. Can you come up with any premises that exists entirely within logic and do not originate from another discipline?
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
i'm not trying to apply logic to premises, YOU ARE
i'm not going to make your argument for you
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Of course you can apply logic to premises. By the definition of logic it can be applied to argumetns. Your own definition says that logic...
You yourself said that...
If you say that logic can't be applied to premises you're contradicting yourself and your own definition of logic.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
you just admitted that premises come from outside of logic and don't follow its rules
premises are used by logic to infer definitions, that doesn't mean logic is applied to them
the whole point of a premise is that it's not derived from logic
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Then what is your issue with my argument?
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
you are applying logic to premises
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
No, I'm inferring a definition of social liberalism through premises I find in the dictionary
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
no, you're saying that both definitions you find in the dictionary must be used because premises obey the rules of logic
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
No, the argument 1 doesn't actually make a logical claim, it just defines Social Liberalism. Which you said is valid.
You'll note that I stated with the definition of social liberalism. Then, I extrapolated out the definitions of the key word used instead of the definition of social liberalism. I never make any claims out side of making the expanded definition of social liberalism, which is...
There is no claim here, just a definition of what it takes to be a social liberal.
This is valid because according to you,
I have my premises from the dictionary, and I used them to infer a definition of social liberalism.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
no
do you still believe this
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Yes, that's how definitions work
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
you only have to use both definitions if you apply symbolic logic
it is a premise so you can't apply symbolic logic
thus you don't use both definitions
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
No, the way definitions work is separate from symbolic logic. Symbolic logic is just the format/tool used to structure arguments. The need to apply an enitire definition is just built into the nature definitions. If you don't have to apply a words entire definition then words become arbitrary and meaningless.
Again, have you ever taken a middle school reasoning class?
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
what
no they fucking don't, i'm not even going to engage with this ridiculous statement
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Symbolic logic is dependent on the nature of definitions, but definitions are not dependent on the existence of symbolic logic. Therefore, definitions are independent of symbolic logic, but symbolic logic is not independent of definition. Again, middle school reasoning.
Do you see how your reasoning breaks down? If we apply your reasoning to definitions, then they don't nessisarily mean what they are supposed to mean. Definitions got from an objective standard to individual interpretation.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
ok so symbolic logic is derived from definitions but definitions are not derived from symbolic logic
therefore you can't use symbolic logic to create definitions
it's possible to take part in it, to do it or to take part in it and do it
no because it's not my reasoning
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
No,the nature definitions are not DEPENDENT on symbolic logic. Definitions can still be created by logic, but logic would not be the thing that defines a definition.
But it's not possible to engage with it and not do/take part in it?
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
but the definitions you're using as premises weren't created by logic, or at least you haven't shown how they were created by logic
at least one of those definitions has to be used, yes
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
We've already established that your definition of logic allows the use of lexiconic definitions. You even said that thse kinds of definitions could be used in the creation of another definition.
Alright, then please give me an example of a time when you can be engaged in something, but not take part in it.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
no we haven't
what does this have to do with "the definitions you're using as premises weren't created by logic"
ok i didn't pay attention to what word you were using, both of those definitions mean the same thing (participate or become involved in.)
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Yes we have, you definition states that "now generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of valid inference. Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to conclusions."
A premise can be a definition, therefore definitions can be used in logic.
My main argument, that social liberals can't be in support of segregation, relies on the definition of social liberalism that has been created with sub-definitions found in the dictionary.
The word was "engage". You said it was possible that a person can be engaged in something yet no take part in it. You didn't give an example of how this is possible.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
that doesn't mean that logic can be applied to definitions
yeah well that's not in the formal statement of your argument is it
i retract that, in this case both sub-definitions mean the same thing
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
By the definition of logic, that you gave me, it does. You're contradicting yourself, and now you're arguing in bad faith.
That exact scentence is not. But that scentement, worded in the formal format, is conclusion 2 of my formal argument.
No, they don't mean the same thing. They have different definitions and therefore are not the same thing. You retraction doesn't stand.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
that doesn't mean that logic can be applied to definitions used as premises
sentiment?
to participate in something and take part in something mean the same thing
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Well by your definition it does. Where in your definition of logic does it say that premises, in the form of definitions, are not valid?
Sentiment means idea. The idea is expressed in conclusion 2.
The word "participate" is not mentioned in the definition of "engage". The clauses are "to do" and "to take part in"
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
never claimed anything like this
premises that aren't derived from logic cannot have logic applied to them
you don't show your definition of social liberalism being created from two sub-definitions, do you
where is this definition
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/engage
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
How does that stop them from being used as part of a logical argument then? No logic is being applied to them, they're just evidence.
The actual definition and sub definitions are the entirety of argument number 1.
It's definition 2b. Did you not actually look at the page when you googled it?
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
you can use premises that aren't derived from logic as premises but you can't apply logic to them
no they aren't
this is worded differently
both of these words mean participate
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Okay, the my premises are intact and my argument is still valid.
Actually, they are
**1a*: If you area a social liberal, you must endorse the idea of the expansion of civil and political rights.
1b: The definition of endorse is to "openly approve" or something.
1c: the definition of approve is to " take a favorable view".
1d: the definition of open is to be "exposed to general view or knowledge"
Therefore: If you are a social liberal, you must expose your favorable view of the idea, of the expansion of civil and political rights, to the general view or knowledge. (note: under the Webster definition of endorsement as it pertains to ideas, you must believe in something to endorse it. This is the distinction between intellectual endorsement and public endorsement.)
Ah, actually no. Do mean : "To bring to pass"
And "take part in" actually does mean to "participate in"
These are two different words with different definitions, they cannot be said to be the same thing.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
the point is you're not forced to use both definitions for a premise
you haven't defined approve here have you
given the examples this definition clearly doesn't mean "to bring to pass"
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
1c: the definition of approve is to " take a favorable view".
Are you actually fucking serious? It's literally the next sentence in the argument.
Alright, well here's the link to the definition of do. Go find a definition that you like.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
you haven't defined it because your definition is wrong
where are you getting this definition from
this is a premise that you haven't derived from logic so you can't use both definitions with or
no, i can tell from the examples that do means participate in, it's not hard
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
That's the definition from the Merriam Webster Dictionary. It's the definition that both of us have been using this entire time!
The Merriam Webster dictionary, just like every other definition I've used this entire time.
No, this premise is a definition from the dictionary. I don't understand what your problem with it is.
That is, in the most literal sense, not how argumentation works. You can't just claim that a word means something because "I just have magical voodoo that lets me know it's meaning", you have to define your terms. If you don't define your terms, your argument is meaningless.
To prove my point, I'll take your quotes and swap out "do" for social liberals.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
no it isn't, i just checked MW online
not in the dictionary
i'm saying that the examples clearly show that it means participate in
"to prove my point i'll do something stupid that makes no sense"
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Did you really, it's defection 1a. It's the defection that we've been contesting this entire time.
It is literally definition 1a, of approve, on the MW web site. Did you actually google it?
Examples are irrelevant. In a logical discussion you need definitions. You just don't want to use a definition because they definition disagrees with you.
It is literally taking your own logic and applying to to the major premise of my argument. If your saying that your own argument is "stupid and makes no sense" then yes, I agree.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/approve
wrong
no it's because you're irrational and i don't want to agree with you on anything that isn't 100% true
you're literally just swapping approve for do when it's obvious what the definition means using the examples
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Yes, it's the dust definition on the page. 1a says "to have or express a favorable opinion of" do you have eyes to see?
Examples aren't valid evidence when the definition disagrees with them.
Examples are irrelevant in the face of definitions
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
that's not the definition you used is it
https://www.reddit.com/r/Braincels/comments/83pi2n/womens_hypocrisy_in_a_nutshell/dvtdq1d/?utm_content=permalink&utm_medium=front&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=Braincels
"do" doesn't disagree with the example
the examples used are part of the definitions
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
I already explained why the "express" clause is irrlivenat because a definition cannot contradict itself and still be valid.
We can't use examples, because eamples are subjective and up to interpation. You might see an example as conforming to the definition of "do" and someone else might not. Therefore, we have to use definitions in debate. Definitions are not up to interpretation, they are objective. Now, if you don't want to stick to defintions, this tells me that you know the defition of "do" doesn't agree with your agument and you're trying to ignore it so that you can preserve your pride. That, of you[re arguing in bad faith.
They are indeed use to show how a definition operates in real life, but they do not supersede a definition. This is because examples are subjective and up to interpretation.
So, lets do away with this example bullshit and stick to objective definitions.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
lol suuuuuuure
if both people accept the examples then of course we can
maybe if you're stupid
wrong
citation needed
you're going to discard any partial definition that doesn't agree with you anyway lol
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Do I need to bring out the example of "engage" again? Because you couldn't' answer is last time. It's cool, I can watch you flounder for a few more minuets.
Okay, then I don't accept examples. I only accept definitions.
Nice ad hominem.
Have any evidence for that mate? You can't just state a something is "wrong", that's bad faith.
Okay, you're saying that our use of the word "do" is enough of an example to say that we both know what the word "do" means in a definitive matter. I do not agree with you. I believe that we need a definitions of further clarify the meaning of the word "do". Therefore, we have both interpreted the data differently.
Okay, the bring me a definition so that we can at least discuss it. Do that instead of you bad faith arguments.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
sure y not
delusional
HURR DURR THE MOON WAS MADE BY PIXIES
"wrong"
YOU CAN'T JUST STATE SOMETHING IS WRONG DUDE THAT'S BAD FAITH
no i'm not
i'm going to say "no i'm not" more often
"to have or express a favorable opinion of"
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Can you prove that you can be engaged with something without doing to taking part in it?
Nice ad hominin
But that's wrong because there is evidence that this is wrong. SO, where's your evidence for your claim?
Then what exactly are you saying?
Be definition, if you can't have an explanation contradict itself. Again, this would have been taught to you in elementary reasoning. See my example of engage. Also see my explain of the nature of definitions.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
oh this is the one where i said that both of the definitions meant the same thing
what evidence is there that the moon wasn't made by pixies
read my posts again
so you're saying that webster put a definition in their dictionary that's wrong
we've already established that definitions can't have logic applied to them unless those definitions are created with logic
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
And you were wrong because they have different definitions.
https://www.nasa.gov/moon
read my rebuttal to your post
The definition is right, your abuse of the definition is wrong.
First I never conceded that. I didn't argue that point because it wasn't necessary to my argument for the definition of social liberalism and I wanted to save time. Secondly, there is still a fundamentally way that definitions have to function in order for them to have meaning. I addressed this earlier, you can go look for it.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
wrong
that's just the method pixies used to create the moon
it's wrong
what saying the definition as written is right is now abuse
you should concede it
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Well can you show that they have the same definition?
Got any proof for that positive claim mate?
Because the definition, as it is written, doesn't allow from self contradiction. You assertion that is can contradict itself demonstrates a lack of knowledge of basic argumentation. And/or bad faith.
It's not true. But it's also not relevant to my argument, so I'm not going to put in the effort to correct it.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
can you prove that they don't
yeah the pixies told me
Got any proof for that positive claim mate?
so you don't deny that definitions can't have logic applied to them unless those definitions are created with logic
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
I already did. I posted both definitions in an earlier reply. You can go look for them.
Can't be independently verified and is therefore invalid.
It's not a positive claim. It's how definitions work.
Well first off, what exactly do you mean by that?
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
i won't accept this until it's been independently verfied
Got any proof for that positive claim mate?
exactly what's written there
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
alright, well it's verifiable. You can go to Webster's yourself and verify it.
Again, by definition it's not a positive claim. Go re-take that basic reason class you slept through.
What' written there isn't clear.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
am i independent now?
Got any proof for that positive claim mate?
what so you can dismiss dictionary definitions offhand but you can't parse a simple sentence
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
do you know what independently verifiable means? Seriously? Because I am explaining a truly surprising number of terms to you.
Do you know what positive claim means? Because, again, I'm starting to suspect that you don't know how argumentative reasoning works.
I have yet to dismiss a dictionary definition. In fact my argument is build to definitions.
But the issue with how you stated your question is that it can be interpreted in several different ways.
I mean, I could say that I could apply logic to definitions when I use them in an argument.
I could say that I apply logic to definitions when I interpret their meaning.
I could say that I apply logic to definitions when I look at the individual words in them a form sub definitions.
So, what exactly do you mean?
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
how do you know if a third party can get the same results
clearly it's a claim that's positive
Got any proof for that positive claim mate?
you have said that the dictionary definition of approve doesn't apply
no
no
no
how are you so bad at understanding relatively simple sentences
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Because you can google it and look for yourself. Did you just google this?
No, definitions, by definition, are not positive claims. They're axioms or evidence.
No, I said that you can't ignore half the definition. And I said that you can't make the definition of approve contradict itself.
Okay, well those are all grammatically, and logical consistent way of interpreting the sentence "you can't apply logic to definitions." If all of these are wrong, then please present the interpretation that you want me to use.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
but can a THIRD party do it? i think not
Got any proof for that positive claim mate?
YOU LITERALLY DID THIS WITH APPROVE
i didn't make anything do anything, i just repeated it as written
the one that's written there, it's not hard
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Any third party with access to the internet can, indeed, google the words I am using.
Right, you literally don't know what a positive claim is.
No, you tried to do this with approve. You tried to ignore the "have" clause and just focus on the "express" clause. When in reality, both clauses need to be conformed to.
Again, you tried to ignore the "have" clause"
The one that is written there has multiple interpretations. Seeing as you will not specify which interpretation is correct, and I have found three that do allow me to apply logic to definitions, I can conclude that I can apply logic to definitions.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
Got any proof for that positive claim mate?
Got any proof for that positive claim mate?
Got any proof for that positive claim mate?
lol this is a new one
well you're wrong
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Yes, your ability to access the internet means that you can look up the definitions right now. And, your past uses of the definitions that I pulled from Webster show evidence that you have done this very thing in the past.
Your misuse of the term "positive claim" shows that you don't
know how a positive claim works.
No, no it's not. It's the basis for your entire country argument. Do you not even remember what you write?
According to the information you've given me to work with...it's right.
I think we've gotten to a pivotal moment where you can't actually find a way to counter my argument anymore so you're just stalling for time. It's nice to know that we're close to either blatant bad faith argumentation, or a concession.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
but how do you know that a THIRD party could do that
i never tried to ignore the "have" clause
i gave you a sentence and you read it wrong
you think wrong, i'm actually waiting for you to learn how to read english
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Because that's how data bases work. Anyone can look up the information and find it. It's the nature of google to allow anyone to look up the Meriam Webster dictionary.
So, you're saying that the "have" clause has to apply to any use of the word "approve."
Well, unless you're going to tell me how to read it correctly, I'll assume I'm in the right. So, correct me.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
Got any proof for that positive claim mate?
i don't think so
read it normally
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
The very nature of google.
Then you're ignoring the have clause
If I read it normally, the I disagree with it. I can apply logic to definitions.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
oh so you understand what a positive claim is now
nah
you're clearly not reading it normally
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
You're gonna have to give me more reasoning than that.
Then how would you interpret it? Because of o read it normally, my answer is yes, I can apply logic.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
it's a statement or premise, doesn't need reasoning
what's there to interpret
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
No, it's a claim. You claim that you don't ignore the "have" clause. And claims need reasoning. So, you can give me the reasoning for your claim, or we can go back into bad faith territory.
Well, considering I gave you 3 separate grammatically and logicaly valid interpretations, apparently a lot.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
it's my opinion, i don't need my opinion to be independently verified
what's there to interpret when it's read by a non-idiot
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
We're not auguring about opinions. We're arguing about definitions. If all you have to back your argument is your opinion, the you're forced to concede the argument.
A: nice ad hominem
B: What do you mean by "apply"? What do you mean by "logic". Is it just symbolic logic or logic in general? In what way are you using the word "definitions", because definitions are incorporated into logical arguments.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
we're arguing about me saying "nah"
apply-apply logic-logic in general
definitions are used as premises
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Alright, well you saying "nah" doesn't invalidate my claim.
Your claim is patently false then. You can use logic to interpret definitions.
1 Zangano1 2018-03-11
What a fucking cuck
1 Cristalline144hz 2018-03-11
Why would a femoid go with a darkskinned currycel when she could go with aryan chad ? Lel
1 Hopecel 2018-03-11
Sounds like the naturalistic fallacy.
1 currynator3000 2018-03-11
Fucking lol
1 DankIncel 2018-03-11
If you aren't Chad as an ethnic, it = over.
1 derivur 2018-03-11
If you aren't Chad it's over regardless.
Good luck uprooting your life to move to Asia and continue being FA because guess what ? You're not chad.
1 DankIncel 2018-03-11
Not really. Go to Thailand. I know an Incel who became a slayer when he went there. They worship white cock there.
1 fuckitidunno 2018-03-11
I know a shit ton of nerdy, unattractive white dudes in relationships. Being white and not (too) autistic is like a cheat mode in dating.
1 GuyFromDaStore 2018-03-11
"Justin Mateen (born March 31, 1986) is a Jewish American internet entrepreneur who is the co-founder and former CMO of popular dating app Tinder."
Still don't think its a conspiracy?
1 Doctor-Chad 2018-03-11
Think what is a conspiracy?
1 GuyFromDaStore 2018-03-11
Shaka, when the walls fell. His eyes closed...
1 Doctor-Chad 2018-03-11
I was legitimately asking a question.
1 Thaaleo 2018-03-11
He legitimately doesn’t have an answer
1 FEDORA_GOD 2018-03-11
Women wanting the most attractive men possible isn't a conspiracy, it's biology.
1 fuckitidunno 2018-03-11
I think he's pushing something about the jews
1 Currycell92 2018-03-11
I think you guys are overdoing it with this one. You cannot force attraction. What's that saying from that Tom hanks movie? Love is fart- if you have to force it, it is probably shit.
I understand that the OP is a curry cel born here in America . Let me be brutally honest as a fob currycel who seen both ends. Us curries barring some Persian looking Chadpreets are always gonna have a shitty times dating here in occident. We were all meant to have nice degrees and careers and for our parents to find us a nice curry girl for marriage. Our average height for men is probably 5'5, 5'6 and self reported penis average of 4". We were never meant to compete against 6'5 Aryan gods and Tyrone mandigos.
Being bitchy abt western femoids, especially the white ones, choosing the former two instead of us is a futile exercise that is just gonna add further to your frustration.
1 GuyFromDaStore 2018-03-11
Yes reality comes into play. Everybody wants the white girls, everybody. Not everybody is going to get one though.
1 Currycell92 2018-03-11
I personally think alot of ethnic cels, when they whine abt inceldom, are just gas lighting their white girl fetish. Let's be honest here, endogamy is still the norm among curry and MENA communities even in second and third generations. Only exception being ricecels, rice femoids do seem to worship mayo and Shlomo cocks.
1 whoareyou31 2018-03-11
Not true. People raised in nonwhite cultures do not want white mates. Im asian and Ive lived in both asian and white cultures. I have asian friends that ONLY hang out with asians and do gay ass kawaii shit snd drink boba.
I personally dont prefer an asian mate because Ive been exposed to a different culture in college and I like that culture.
1 derivur 2018-03-11
White guy, 5'.11" here.
I'd be okay with a woman of any ethnicity, but I'm not good looking enough, not tall enough, not confident enough, not... etc.
Meanwhile 6' blue eyed blond guys are approached by women all the time.
1 fuckitidunno 2018-03-11
At the moment I'm more into dark Latinas myself
1 vvvvvvvvvvv11 2018-03-11
You're replying to me. No need to use me in third person. Currycels have had it bad, I knew this long before even the most blackpilled ones, as young as 8 or 9 where I had a decent base of youtube subscribers when that site was first made (before the attention sluts, comedians, and fitness competitors) but was embarrassed of my ethnicity. Goes even further than incel anyways. We all know that. Don't understand why you think we should keep our mouths zipped though.
1 Currycell92 2018-03-11
Im not expecting you to keep your mouths zipped.
1 vvvvvvvvvvv11 2018-03-11
We shouldn't. Most currycels are bluepilled which I had completely forgotten after joining this sub. They all need to know the cold hard truth, and repeating it is what'll get the job done.
1 KufoIV 2018-03-11
I think people take this sub way too fucking seriously and get wayy too butt hurt over everything.
1 boredyeah 2018-03-11
Isss justttt a preference doe teehee
taps cunt repeatedly
1 superman1145 2018-03-11
Tfw white and 0 matches.
1 vvvvvvvvvvv11 2018-03-11
How does a white 6 foot person who's above average looking except for their nose, not get matches? Are you using my face pics or something?
1 superman1145 2018-03-11
Might be something to do with where I live my catfishes barely get any matches either
1 Yemanthing 2018-03-11
6ft and white here. If they find out I don't have a car that's when it's over 75% of the time (of the times that have some level of success). The other 25% they wait until the date and flake only to never talk to me again. I cant afford a car. I spent 6 years just to get this job at home depot and thanks to the minimum wage hike they just cut my hours in half and hired a bunch of new people so they can phase out the full timers. I make like $1000 A month now. A room costs $600/m. My city also has like 13% unemployment or something so there's nothing else. I moved across the country already and was miserable and alone (thats how I got this job, ended up transferring back).
1 vvvvvvvvvvv11 2018-03-11
I'm shorter and ethnic, with no car and I live at home. No job either.
1 HeavyJhon 2018-03-11
"Yeah they are attracted to people that look like them", no idiot i live in south america and ethnic women are the worse, they have Brown skin and like 5 feet tall and literally only want 6 feet tall White chads with blue eyes, even they make fun about the guys of his same race.
Women are just nazis, the analogy is perfect, they are attracted to te race that they percive as superior.
1 rubbish_everywhere 2018-03-11
When short brown women refuse to date brown men.
1 69SRDP69 2018-03-11
Doesn't seem very accurate, just dumb
1 HenryStrenner 2018-03-11
I want more of these high class comics.
1 vvvvvvvvvvv11 2018-03-11
There's a bunch of them in one website.
1 HenryStrenner 2018-03-11
I want them chosen by braincels.
1 Short_Incel_Throw 2018-03-11
Ironically, TRP comics was too RP for r/TRP
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
That implies that you intend to expand civil rights to up to some predetermined point. But, the definition of social liberalism includes no specified end, only expansion. Can you find me a definition that claims that social liberalism ends at segregation?
1 Doctor-Chad 2018-03-11
Think what is a conspiracy?
1 FEDORA_GOD 2018-03-11
Women wanting the most attractive men possible isn't a conspiracy, it's biology.
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
No, No, No, you don't get to change definitions just because you don't like them. The definition given in the dictionary doesn't give room for "expression" to be false. That's just you misusing of the word.
You'll note that the other half of the definition of explicitly states that you do in deed have to HAVE the favorable opinion. Let's look at the definition again, "Approve: to have or express a favorable opinion of". You can't just cherry pick the parts of definitions that you like, it's intellectually dishonest. (Then against I'm talking to an incel, and your entire philosophy is built on intellectual dishonesty.)
I was using support as a synonym for favor. If you can't make that mental leap go back to grade school.
Just to hammer it in, lets look at definitions. If you go the dictionary and look up Favor, you'll find this 3a:"to give SUPPPORT or confirmation to." The definition of favor... is to support something. If you just go and fucking google things you'll save yourself a lot of time.
It's no factually untrue. Once they stop supporting the expansion of civil/political rights they stop being socially liberal, by definition. They can call themselves socially liberal, but by the definition of social liberalism, they're not.
If you look in any dictionary, you'll see that they have different definitions of a word that can be use in different context. Now, if you stop and think for more the 10 seconds you'll realize that every single definition of a word in the dictionary doesn't work for every single sentence or context. So, I pointed out the definition of the word that I was invoking. (that which pertains to abstraction.) I was indicating the definition of endorsement (2a I think) which best fit my sentence. If I need to stop and walk you through how dictionaries work then maybe you should go back to your elementary school English class. You need to just stop and think before you ask stupid questions that you should be able to answer yourself.
I also find it fucking hilarious that as your argument deteriorates, you have to fall back on ad hominin attacks. Keep up the logical fallacies!
1 fuckitidunno 2018-03-11
Translation
1 fuckitidunno 2018-03-11
In what country is that even a thing?
1 Eliterit_Reddit_User 2018-03-11
You literally just admitted that sexual attraction is influenced and developed by culture and social factors and then claimed you can't change it.
1 KingOfCorinth 2018-03-11
If we shift cultural attitudes and messages, yes, future generations will have different and perhaps more inclusive standards for what they find attractive.
For anyone who already exists, and has already been through their formative years, their tastes are set. Recognizing "hey, those are the cultural forces that shaped my psyche, and they're racist" doesn't remove the imprint -- I don't magically become attracted to fat body types just because I've learned on a conscious level that fat shaming is bad, or because I know that depictions of thin women in media shaped my perceptions of attractiveness. My "preferences" are locked in my psyche, and I can't will them away.
Therefore, it's pointless and sloppy to say someone is a racist if they're not attracted to x, y, or z. That attraction is not an opinion, it's not an attitude, it's not a belief. Maybe it's only happening because of exposure to racist messaging during cognitive development, but that doesn't make those people racist.
1 Eliterit_Reddit_User 2018-03-11
It entirely does make them racist though. What you're literally saying is "Yes, I may have racist preferences, but I'm not actually racist. That's just the way society made me (my parents raised me, or whatever excuse you want to use.)" As long as you are actively combatting your own prejudice (or "racial preferences" in this context) by first admitting that your preference for pale skin over dark skin is wrong and then trying to reverse the bigotry ingrained in our culture, you are not a racist. But refusing to criticize yourself and deal with your internalized bigotry by stating "it's a view of mine that I can't change." IS ultimately racist.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
you shouldn't apply symbolic logic to premises because premises are outside logic
do you agree with this statement
1 Reld720 2018-03-11
Yes, your ability to access the internet means that you can look up the definitions right now. And, your past uses of the definitions that I pulled from Webster show evidence that you have done this very thing in the past.
Your misuse of the term "positive claim" shows that you don't
know how a positive claim works.
No, no it's not. It's the basis for your entire country argument. Do you not even remember what you write?
According to the information you've given me to work with...it's right.
I think we've gotten to a pivotal moment where you can't actually find a way to counter my argument anymore so you're just stalling for time. It's nice to know that we're close to either blatant bad faith argumentation, or a concession.
1 sc2isadeadgame 2018-03-11
but how do you know that a THIRD party could do that
i never tried to ignore the "have" clause
i gave you a sentence and you read it wrong
you think wrong, i'm actually waiting for you to learn how to read english