Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lethrneck4
i dont see the problem...in black and latino/hispanic communites, one of their major cultural concerns is the promotion of thier race or nationality over others...its not called racist though, its called being "culturally proud". when white people do the same, we are called racist before an explanation can even be given. the double standard again, and whites are always on the losing end. the same people who condemn racist whites call blacks who are racist "empowered" and "proud of thier heritage". im sure i dotn have to point out that black racism towards whites probably outweighs white racism vs blacks at this point. why is it ok for a black kid to wear a BLACK PRIDE shirt to school, but when a white kid tries, hes suspended and called a hateful racist. this board is full of liberal left leaning wankers...so your responses to this post should be comical....lol
|
i'm not even going to start arguing against this insubstantial, selective and lazy argument.
i think i'll just list some of the logical fallacies commited by you.
“Ad hominem”
- Latin for “against the man”. The ad hominem fallacy is the fallacy of attacking the person offering an argument rather than the argument itself.
Generalisation
- Generalisations draw conclusions from insufficient evidence. In order for a set of evidence to support and general conclusion, the evidence must be drawn from a sufficient number of cases, and from a sufficiently varied set of cases. The more limited or unrepresentative the evidence sample, the less convincing an argument will be.
Slippery Slope
- Sometimes one event can set of a chain of consequences; one thing leads to another, as the saying goes. The slippery slope fallacy is committed by arguments that reason that because the last link in the chain is undesirable, the first link is equally undesirable.
Straw Man
- Straw Man arguments are arguments that misrepresent a position in order to refute it. Unfortunately, adopting this strategy means that only the misrepresentation of the position is refuted; the real position is left untouched by the argument.
Tu Quoque
- Latin for “you too”. The tu quoque fallacy involves using other people’s faults as an excuse for one’s own, reasoning that because someone or everyone else does something, it’s okay for us to do it. This, of course, doesn’t follow. Sometimes other people have short-comings, and we ought to do better than them. We can be blamed for emulating other people’s faults.
Weak Analogy
- Arguments by analogy rest on a comparison between two cases. They examine a known case, and extend their findings there to an unknown case. Thus we might reason that because we find it difficult to forgive a girlfriend or boyfriend who cheated on us (a known case), it must be extremely difficult for someone to forgive a spouse who has had an affair (an unknown case).
Prejudicial Language
- Loaded or emotive terms are used to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition or suspicion or dislike to the opposing position.
Hasty Generalization
- The scope of evidence (in context of course) is too small to support the conclusion.
Fallacy of Exclusion
- Relevant evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence".
Not to mention the plethora of inaccuracies arising from ignored historical and social context.