Find "misgeneration" in your Oxford, since you seem to think argumentum ad dictionarium is a really swell way to support your argument. rolleyes
Ahh.. thank you for clarifying the word.
I was getting the word confused.
The original word is Miscegenation.
Wow...you're using rational wiki, congrats a wonderfully non-biased site.
But no.
There's only two places that use "Argumentum ad dictionarium".
Geek Feminism wiki and Rational Wiki, not the best to use.
You were getting a word that you're basing your argument on confused, yet you think you're still making sense? Mystifying.
Only two? You sure about that? In any event, an appeal to the dictionary is fallacious because it does not describe or explain a thing, merely defines it and details how it is commonly used in the language, as in by the majority, who may or may not be in the best position to discuss the concept the word represents. For an explanation, you want an encyclopedia.
Racism consists of both prejudice and discrimination based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. It often takes the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently.[1][2][3]
[1]Racism (Oxford Dictionaries)
[2]"Racism" in R. Schaefer. 2008 Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society. SAGE. p. 1113
[3]Newman, D. M. (2012). Sociology : exploring the architecture of everyday life (9th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE. p. 405. ISBN 978-1-4129-8729-5. "racism: Belief that humans are subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as superior or inferior.
Wow...you're using rational wiki, congrats a wonderfully non-biased site.
But no.
There's only two places that use "Argumentum ad dictionarium".
Geek Feminism wiki and Rational Wiki, not the best to use.
What does her source of an explanation have to do with you invoking it?
Whether she calls it argumentum ad dictionarium, a definitional defense, semantic deflection, or any other term means exactly squat, as does whatever site she links to for an example of your antics.
Furthermore, due to the fact that RationalWiki has nothing to do with the discussion itself, your attacking her for using it is nothing more than a strawman, seemingly invoked for the sake of deflection (also known as a red herring).
I wouldn't even bother trying with the OP tbh.
Judging from this thread, she has her head so far up her a**, she's convinced straight people are like, apparently the most oppressed group of people on earth. No amount of logic is ever gonna get though to that brick wall of a "brain" of hers.
Trust me I've tried.
You can;t disagree with something that is inherent and unchangeable :/ You can dislike it, hate it, whatever, but you can't "disagree with it".
False equivalency - you can disagree with someone's choice to smoke, given what society knows of the health aspects associated with smoking and the harm it causes to the environment etc, and you can dislike someone smoking near you, due to the fact that they are impacting on your choice not to smoke and affecting your health. You cannot apply the same reasoning to somone who dislike people who are blond, or have blue eyes, or are gay. Disliking someone on the basis of something they have no control over is hateful, disagreeing with their existence (as much as you try to spin it that its their lifestyle or whatever, it is the mere fact that they exist and are therefore disagreeable to the OP that is the root of this) is hateful - it is hateful.
He didn't say he disagreed with homosexuals. He said that he feels men should be with women
It's pretty universally understood that it's not right for grown adults to be sexual with children. That's a desire that those people can't control, and can't decide whether they want it or not. But it's well understood that society believes they shouldn't act out their inherent desires
Again, I'm not saying I agree with him. I'm simply pointing out that his stated opinion in the OP is not necessarily that of hate
OP has used the word many times... And rephrasing it doesn't change the basic premise, which is hateful.
So, homosexuality is the same as ***** now?
It's similar to ***** in that it's a sexual desire that some are born with and some in society believe should not be acted on
Except that the premise is entirely different :/ another flawed analogy...
You have yet to tell me how they're different in a way that contradicts with what I've said
***** is comparable to bestiality - both are examples of sexual desires and require rape (and sexual assault?) to be fulfilled, as the subject of what those individuals desire is incapable of consent. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are things the individual cannot chose as well, but in order to act upon them, the consent of other willing adults can (and should) be sought. Saying such acts are deviant to the extent that they should be repressed (as with *****) is flawed, as it assumes someone is hurt by such actions, when no one is.
The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races: theories of racism
More example sentences
1.1Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior: a programme to combat racism
Technically speaking, not liking misgeneration does not on its own make someone racist as not liking misgeneration does not mean you hate people who are mixed or people who mix just the action.
We've been over this XD.
Go over it again; that definition doesn't require hate.
Oh; and here's the synonyms from that definition: racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice/bigotry, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, bias, intolerance;
anti-Semitism
in South Africa , historical apartheid
You'll notice it's synonymous with racial discrimination, racial prejudice, and bigotry. So prejudging people based on race by saying they shouldn't mix is racist.
Nice try on the whole "Well technically" but even on a technical standpoint you're still blatantly wrong.
Racism consists of both prejudice and discrimination based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. It often takes the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently.[1][2][3]
[1]Racism (Oxford Dictionaries)
[2]"Racism" in R. Schaefer. 2008 Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society. SAGE. p. 1113
[3]Newman, D. M. (2012). Sociology : exploring the architecture of everyday life (9th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE. p. 405. ISBN 978-1-4129-8729-5. "racism: Belief that humans are subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as superior or inferior.
Very well, is miscegenation racist?:
If somebody does not believe in biological differences of races but still does not like miscegenation, is that racist?
If somebody does not believe that one race is inferior to another does that mean it is not racist?
If they do not hold that people of different races should be treated differently does that mean it is not racist?
---
If not liking race mixing is universally applied, does that make it not racist?
For example, not liking blacks and whites to mix but being okay with whites and asians or whites and hispanics is racist.
It's racist due mainly to the difference of treatment depending on the mix.
However if it's universal (all races should stick to their own) and not just one then are all getting the same treatment?
Race 1 and Race 2 mixing being viewed as wrong regardless of race.
----
Regardless, the proof should technically be on the one saying that it is racist as opposed to isn't.
Ryo Tarn
You'll notice it's synonymous with racial discrimination, racial prejudice, and bigotry. So prejudging people based on race by saying they shouldn't mix is racist.
Being against race mixing does not necessitate that a person be prejudged for being of a different race.
One can view all people as being equal and not prejudge people while still disagreeing with race mixing.
You'll notice it's synonymous with racial discrimination, racial prejudice, and bigotry. So prejudging people based on race by saying they shouldn't mix is racist.
Being against race mixing does not necessitate that a person be prejudged for being of a different race.
One can view all people as being equal and not prejudge people while still disagreeing with race mixing.
Yes; it does. You have judged the races to be different and are judging individuals based on that previous judgement about their race as different. Thus you are racially prejudiced.
Racism consists of both prejudice and discrimination based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. It often takes the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently.[1][2][3]
[1]Racism (Oxford Dictionaries)
[2]"Racism" in R. Schaefer. 2008 Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society. SAGE. p. 1113
[3]Newman, D. M. (2012). Sociology : exploring the architecture of everyday life (9th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE. p. 405. ISBN 978-1-4129-8729-5. "racism: Belief that humans are subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as superior or inferior.
Very well, is miscegenation racist?:
If somebody does not believe in biological differences of races but still does not like miscegenation, is that racist?
If somebody does not believe that one race is inferior to another does that mean it is not racist?
If they do not hold that people of different races should be treated differently does that mean it is not racist?
---
If not liking race mixing is universally applied, does that make it not racist?
For example, not liking blacks and whites to mix but being okay with whites and asians or whites and hispanics is racist.
It's racist due mainly to the difference of treatment depending on the mix.
However if it's universal (all races should stick to their own) and not just one then are all getting the same treatment?
Race 1 and Race 2 mixing being viewed as wrong regardless of race.
----
Regardless, the proof should technically be on the one saying that it is racist as opposed to isn't.
Ryo Tarn
You'll notice it's synonymous with racial discrimination, racial prejudice, and bigotry. So prejudging people based on race by saying they shouldn't mix is racist.
Being against race mixing does not necessitate that a person be prejudged for being of a different race.
One can view all people as being equal and not prejudge people while still disagreeing with race mixing.
It would make absolutely no sense and I have no idea why you're bringing it up.
Yes; it does. You have judged the races to be different and are judging individuals based on that previous judgement about their race as different. Thus you are racially prejudiced.
Perhaps I shall give an example.
There is a view among some groups akin to the following:
Culture is defined by two different blocks:Region and Race.
Distinct regional areas have a distinct culture about them. Different parts of the world have different cultures.
At the same time, there are different ethnic groups within these areas, many of whom have different cultures and values.
While the overwhelming population of China is Han there exists ethnic groups within China with their own cultures: the Manchus, Tibetans,Mongols, Tatars, etc.
While some of these people abandon their culture, many however do not.
When races mix the view is that the cultures of the different parents may perhaps clash or intertwine.
One faction holds that doing so necessarily involves the death of one part of the culture.
That is, the child of such a union will eventually have to choose which culture to adopt and which to abandon-leading to the "death" of one part. In order to preserve their culture, they view that people shouldn't mix races.t
The other faction believes that doing so results in cultural mixing. The resulting mix "dilutes" and homogenizes cultures as opposed to celebrating their diversity. Continual cultural dilution and homogenization throughout time results in the death of the original cultures for the creation of some strange form of hodgepodge.
There is a third faction which believes that doing so harms the children. The children of such a union have no identity and culture purely of their own, they are stuck between two worlds fitting well within neither. This results in increased suicide, depression, alcoholism, etc. They argue that for the sake of your children, you should not mix races.
--------
All of these views, you will notice, do not rely on any notion of one race being superior to another nor do they rely on concepts like the inherent qualities of races.
All they do is recognize that culture can often be tied to the ethnic background of a person and that for the preservation of said culture they are against race mixing.
If you're really going to argue that recognizing that culture is often (not always) tied to ones racial background is racist, then I'm afraid of there's no help for you.
There is a view among some groups akin to the following:
Culture is defined by two different blocks:Region and Race.
Distinct regional areas have a distinct culture about them. Different parts of the world have different cultures.
At the same time, there are different ethnic groups within these areas, many of whom have different cultures and values.
While the overwhelming population of China is Han there exists ethnic groups within China with their own cultures: the Manchus, Tibetans,Mongols, Tatars, etc.
While some of these people abandon their culture, many however do not.
When races mix the view is that the cultures of the different parents may perhaps clash or intertwine.
One faction holds that doing so necessarily involves the death of one part of the culture.
That is, the child of such a union will eventually have to choose which culture to adopt and which to abandon-leading to the "death" of one part. In order to preserve their culture, they view that people shouldn't mix races.t
The other faction believes that doing so results in cultural mixing. The resulting mix "dilutes" and homogenizes cultures as opposed to celebrating their diversity. Continual cultural dilution and homogenization throughout time results in the death of the original cultures for the creation of some strange form of hodgepodge.
There is a third faction which believes that doing so harms the children. The children of such a union have no identity and culture purely of their own, they are stuck between two worlds fitting well within neither. This results in increased suicide, depression, alcoholism, etc. They argue that for the sake of your children, you should not mix races.
--------
All of these views, you will notice, do not rely on any notion of one race being superior to another nor do they rely on concepts like the inherent qualities of races.
Except for the "only our race can preserve our culture" bit.
Muh upbrangin' is not an excuse. I was brought up to hate gay people. I was brought up to hate feminine men and masculine women. I was brought up to be a Christian. I was brought up to always ride my bike on the sidewalk. I was brought up to never get piercings or tattoos. I was brought up to not play too many video games. I was brought up to get strait A's. I was brought up to never smoke, drink, or do drugs.
You can ******** change. It doesn't matter how you "disapprove" of gay people. It just matters that you do, and there is no reason you should.
Yes; it does. You have judged the races to be different and are judging individuals based on that previous judgement about their race as different. Thus you are racially prejudiced.
Perhaps I shall give an example.
There is a view among some groups akin to the following:
Culture is defined by two different blocks:Region and Race.
Distinct regional areas have a distinct culture about them. Different parts of the world have different cultures.
At the same time, there are different ethnic groups within these areas, many of whom have different cultures and values.
While the overwhelming population of China is Han there exists ethnic groups within China with their own cultures: the Manchus, Tibetans,Mongols, Tatars, etc.
While some of these people abandon their culture, many however do not.
When races mix the view is that the cultures of the different parents may perhaps clash or intertwine.
One faction holds that doing so necessarily involves the death of one part of the culture.
That is, the child of such a union will eventually have to choose which culture to adopt and which to abandon-leading to the "death" of one part. In order to preserve their culture, they view that people shouldn't mix races.t
The other faction believes that doing so results in cultural mixing. The resulting mix "dilutes" and homogenizes cultures as opposed to celebrating their diversity. Continual cultural dilution and homogenization throughout time results in the death of the original cultures for the creation of some strange form of hodgepodge.
There is a third faction which believes that doing so harms the children. The children of such a union have no identity and culture purely of their own, they are stuck between two worlds fitting well within neither. This results in increased suicide, depression, alcoholism, etc. They argue that for the sake of your children, you should not mix races.
--------
All of these views, you will notice, do not rely on any notion of one race being superior to another nor do they rely on concepts like the inherent qualities of races.
All they do is recognize that culture can often be tied to the ethnic background of a person and that for the preservation of said culture they are against race mixing.
If you're really going to argue that recognizing that culture is often (not always) tied to ones racial background is racist, then I'm afraid of there's no help for you.
Culture =/= race; so that entire rant was utterly useless and idiotic.
You realize there's a difference between Chinese Culture and Japanese Culture right? Despite how both countries are primarily Asian? And that similarly German Culture is vastly different from Greek Culture despite both being primarily Caucasian?
So yeah; that whole rant is useless and ignorant for pretending like they're the same thing.
BTW; Culture is defined as: 1cul·ture
noun ˈkəl-chər
: the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time
: a particular society that has its own beliefs, ways of life, art, etc.
: a way of thinking, behaving, or working that exists in a place or organization (such as a business)
It's deals with society; not race. There are different races within cultures; so it isn't a cultural issue (that's a red herring) it's based on the prejudicial notion that the races are somehow inherently different in a meaningful way.
And next time, if you're going to respond to me then quote me; not yourself.
Of course. It is quite clearly a form of discrimination based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. There is a reason behind "I don't like it" and that reason is "race".
Quote:
If somebody does not believe in biological differences of races but still does not like miscegenation, is that racist?
The concept of miscegenation is based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples, and is rendered incoherent without the idea of "races" being different.
Quote:
If somebody does not believe that one race is inferior to another does that mean it is not racist?
No. Miscegenation by definition is based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. "Inferiority" is not the only way in which to perceive a "difference".
Quote:
If they do not hold that people of different races should be treated differently does that mean it is not racist?
What else does it mean, to think that one should not be permitted to marry another, or have children with another, or associate with another, if not a different treatment? That's also rendering the concept incoherent.
Quote:
If not liking race mixing is universally applied, does that make it not racist?
No, it does not. It remains based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples.
Quote:
For example, not liking blacks and whites to mix but being okay with whites and asians or whites and hispanics is racist.
Yes. It's racist.
Quote:
It's racist due mainly to the difference of treatment depending on the mix.
No. It's racist due to being based upon social perceptions of biological differences between peoples.
Quote:
However if it's universal (all races should stick to their own) and not just one then are all getting the same treatment?
NO. It is racist. Full stop.
Quote:
Race 1 and Race 2 mixing being viewed as wrong regardless of race.
Without the concept of "race" there is no such thing as "miscegenation" and your argument becomes incoherent. Are you an idiot?
Quote:
Regardless, the proof should technically be on the one saying that it is racist as opposed to isn't.
Incorrect. The person asserting that miscenegation is wrong needs to support that assertion. Proof is on the racist piece of human garbage.
Sexually involving yourself like most homosexuals do is a choice
It is also a choice for me to be right handed. Well, mostly by choice. That doesn't change the fact I was born left handed and my left hand is still my dominate hand, and my right hand still feels weird being used as I use it everyday.
In essence this is what you are saying. You're saying it is their choice to have sex? What, do you think that you should enforce celibacy to every homosexual? Unless of course they can stomach the opposite gender.
Oh fun fact, did you know that Jesus himself was at least bisexual? All that male on male kissing in the bible. Should be a yaoi fic with how much kissing is going on there.
Quote:
Yes it is. Being attracted is not a choice and nobody said it wasn't in this thread iirc.
Are you sure? Cause we can check, I can look over your post history if you like.
Quote:
It's not hateful to be in someone else's business.
Not unless you are saying something like: "all gays should burn in hell". Or "you are not allowed to have sex". Yeah. That isn't hateful. rolleyes
If I told you that I ******** despise your hair color, and I constantly was on how anyone with you hair color were basically filthy bastards, and should be prevented from having sex, and should be put into camps, and just on and on and on like that. Do you really think that doesn't HURT someone? People can have thick skin, but even then constantly being told just how... 'bad' you are gets to you and eventually you start believing in what people call you.
Then there is that annoyance of people not minding their own business. Very much like Mormons.
Quote:
That sounds like the thinking of a child.
You mean the child who was raised to hate homosexuals? Or the child who was taught acceptance of HUMAN LIFE and all its shades and quirks?
Quote:
Hate will always exhibit some action beyond just saying that you don't like a certain group of people or what certain people do.
Actually no. Hate is an emotion mingled... disgust, rage, all that stuff. You can personally HATE doing the dishes but never speak out against it. IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT that you HATE doing the dishes. Hate is not action, it can lead to actions, but hate in itself is just an emotion.
Quote:
Like borderline cussing someone out for having an opinion that differs from yours or the carnal and idiotic norm that is being shoved down people's throats.
As an asexual I don't like to have sex, but I see visual pleasure in the act. Just because you are so scared of sex, and despise it like the best Mormons in the business doesn't change the fact human beings have a very strong sexual drive. If you think we are not a sexual species then you are ignorant on all factors on human biology.
Quote:
Ok shitty equivalency
Want a better one? "I hate black people, I wish all black niggers would just get their stinking skins bleached at birth so I don't have to look at their stank asses."
That is a better one for what you are doing. Maybe...
"I want to castrate all blacks, they shouldn't be allowed to procreate, they all have ******** aids so its a plus. Do you really want a black man giving a white woman aids? I tell you , that you don't."
There we go. Why am I equating you to a racist? You decide why, I'm sure you know.
Quote:
but shitting o anybody with an differing opinion that can have a reason other than I think this because I think this.
Go outside, go to a public place with a lot of traffic and scream the same things the WBC shouts. Or just shout: "Praise the lord, praise jesus for this world! May all sinners come to him and ask for forgiveness or die in hell fire!" See how far you can go into hate mongering until someone stops you. If you think you are being oppressed then you don't know what oppression is. Here you go watch this video.
Keep saying you're being oppressed when you have the right to go out and scream hellfire sermons where little children can hear and keep telling yourself that you are a victim of repression.
Quote:
And I've heard people defend good causes for crappy trivial reasons but that doesn't change anything.
And I quote: "I was raised and taught a certain way and believe a man should be with another women."
Racism consists of both prejudice and discrimination based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. It often takes the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently.[1][2][3]
[1]Racism (Oxford Dictionaries)
[2]"Racism" in R. Schaefer. 2008 Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society. SAGE. p. 1113
[3]Newman, D. M. (2012). Sociology : exploring the architecture of everyday life (9th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE. p. 405. ISBN 978-1-4129-8729-5. "racism: Belief that humans are subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as superior or inferior.
Very well, is miscegenation racist?:
If somebody does not believe in biological differences of races but still does not like miscegenation, is that racist?
If somebody does not believe that one race is inferior to another does that mean it is not racist?
If they do not hold that people of different races should be treated differently does that mean it is not racist?
---
If not liking race mixing is universally applied, does that make it not racist?
For example, not liking blacks and whites to mix but being okay with whites and asians or whites and hispanics is racist.
It's racist due mainly to the difference of treatment depending on the mix.
However if it's universal (all races should stick to their own) and not just one then are all getting the same treatment?
Race 1 and Race 2 mixing being viewed as wrong regardless of race.
----
Regardless, the proof should technically be on the one saying that it is racist as opposed to isn't.
Ryo Tarn
You'll notice it's synonymous with racial discrimination, racial prejudice, and bigotry. So prejudging people based on race by saying they shouldn't mix is racist.
Being against race mixing does not necessitate that a person be prejudged for being of a different race.
One can view all people as being equal and not prejudge people while still disagreeing with race mixing.
It would make absolutely no sense and I have no idea why you're bringing it up.
That's because he's rendering the concept incoherent in an attempt to justify an untenable position. See also: Bullshittery.
