The Common Logical Fallacy in Anti-Racism and Equality Movements
Thu, 2007-08-16 09:38
#1
The Common Logical Fallacy in Anti-Racism and Equality Movements
Thu, 2007-08-16 09:38
#2
One thing we can all agree on, I think, is that "racism" and "sexism" are terrible things.
But also I see an equally dangerous sentiment often expressed by those who wish to destroy racism and sexism. The intent is good. The result is totalitarian and false-premised.
With equality movements and parity movements who seek to legislate such ideals, the logic is that by creating an even and result, equality is achieved. I think this is highly unreasonable. Nothing in life magically works out with even results. The logical fallacy committed is that in an ideal society where every individual human was free from discrimination everything would magically become even. There would be proportional numbers of men and women or people of each rach or religion within each career field. Nothing in life works out this way.
The other logical fallacy committed is that wherever these things are not magically evened out, discrimination must be to blame. That is highly presumptuous and deadly wrong.And the end result of such social-engineered equality will be that many people will be hired specifically for being of a certain race or of a certain gender, and not based on who they are. And also that democratic decision will be superceded, because of the prejudicial view these movements have of regular citizens--the democratic decision must be kept in check by the Special Interest Groups, because people are all racist bigots. There is no other way to implement gender parity in parliament than to supercede democracy....because how else can you guarantee that equal numbers of female candidates will actually be elected, and how do you achieve parity if equal numbers are not elected?
Of course I believe that women and men are equal and that there is no such thing as racial superiority, but when you do not support this radical logic the automatic response is to shout out "bigot, racist". This is how dissent is dealt with, whether it be true of the dissenter or not.
Case in point, in the town of Corby in the UK, many people are losing their careers because public sector jobs are being moved out of that town. The reason for this is that the town is "too white, too English". So they are moving the jobs to a town which is more ethnically diverse.
[url=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23387266-details/The+town+bra...
Thu, 2007-08-16 09:45
#3
quote:
Originally posted by Fearghail:
[b]One thing we can all agree on, I think, is that "racism" and "sexism" are terrible things. [/b]
I cannot imagine a post that begins with a sentence like this that can get any better as it goes along.
So, let me take this opportunity to say that I do [b]not[/b] welcome you to babble. Just speaking for myself, you know.
Thu, 2007-08-16 09:52
#4
Also I feel that there is a great danger in hate legislation. First off, I fully agree with those who would say "a crime is already a crime". So why do we need to add the extra "hate" part? Do we have love crimes? When I rob a fellow white man is it out of love?
The real grave danger comes in when you begin to see some of the things which are classified as hate crimes. Moral beliefs have even become targets, whether you agree with them or not. The problem is that hate is now being measured by how much a person claims to be offended. If your opinion offends someone in a protected group, you can sue. People are doing it. They win, they get cash from it.
Case in point, the politician in BC, who, when asked his views on homosexuality, said I believe they are people and should be treated equally but as a Catholic I feel it is a sin. He did not mandate that anyone hurt homosexuals or incite violence. Nonetheless he was sued for $1000 by someone who claimed to be offended.
What is next? Should I be able to sue Jews because I am a pork-eater and I am offended by the fact that it is considered unclean? That would be ridiculous! There is a difference between tolerance and condoning. With tolerance you must respect another person even if you do not condone his actions and cannot commit any violent act against him. But mandating that people must condone things is a violation of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. It goes beyond one's basic human rights. It is not a basic human right that people should have to condone what you do. Our human rights end where a person's freedom to opinion begins and to vocally express that opinion begins.
If people want true freedom and equality, they must seek it without imposing it. The very nature of legislated freedom and equality, is self-defeating. You can never achieve it by trying to control the world outwardly. The minute you begin to do so, you have joined the ranks of the tyrants you hate who all sought to impose their good intentions on everyone.
Thu, 2007-08-16 09:54
#5
Makwa
quote:
Originally posted by Fearghail:
[b]But also I see an equally dangerous sentiment often expressed by those who wish to destroy racism and sexism. The intent is good. The result is totalitarian and false-premised. ... in the town of Corby in the UK, many people are losing their careers because public sector jobs are being moved out of that town. The reason for this is that the town is "too white, too English". So they are moving the jobs to a town which is more ethnically diverse. [/b]
Sigh. Another, woe the poor white man, reverse racism, blah blah. Jeez, and it took Fear long enough to get to the point. Do not give yourself any points for originality.
Thu, 2007-08-16 09:57
#6
Frustrated Mess
quote:
With equality movements and parity movements who seek to legislate such ideals, the logic is that by creating an even and result, equality is achieved.
There is a certain prerequisite to a good political argument and that is showing enough respect for a potential opponent by learning the arguments and logic behind his or her side of the issue. Not knowing the other side's argument is, well, intellectually lazy.
Thu, 2007-08-16 10:02
#7
Clearly a poster with no understanding of what 'equality' means.
I give this an 8 out of 10 Plonk.
Thu, 2007-08-16 10:05
#8
Ah, I never said I was a poor white man, sir. And in fact this kind of legislation will even end up biting black men or blue men or green men, or women of such respective colors. Because in the end it is based on a logical fallacy. And nothing good can come from it.
You can make all the accusations you want, about bigotry or "poor white man", but I am not intimidated by them, because I know who I am, you do not, Sir. What I am saying is right and true.
Answer this, how can you impose gender parity in parliament without superceding democracy? If we make an even number of male and female candidates how do you guarantee that an equal number get elected to office. And let us suppose that in some future time more women would get elected because (perhaps people feel they are better for the job, not because of gender) then
the law would mandate that democracy be superceded in favor of men, who may not have been elected because they were crappy candidates.
As for "reverse discrimination" Sir, it is a term which I equally abhor. It implies, in fact, that discrimination comes from one direction. Discrimination is discrimination.
Thu, 2007-08-16 10:09
#9
A year ago, an online friend and I were making the very same points in an IRC political chatroom. Of course, we heard all the same accusations----white bigot, poor white man, etc etc. I always thought highly of this friend of mine who sat through all these accusations and never once mentioned to anyone what he and I both knew about him-----He was black.
Thu, 2007-08-16 10:12
#10
Suddently this turned into an 'I've got Black friends" arguement?
Please, step away from the keyboard, it's doing no one any good.
Thu, 2007-08-16 10:15
#11
N.Beltov
Wow, no shit. Pull up before you crash and burn there fella.
Thu, 2007-08-16 10:21
#12
Makwa
quote:
Originally posted by Fearghail:
[b]And in fact this kind of legislation will even end up biting black men or blue men or green men .... It implies, in fact, that discrimination comes from one direction. Discrimination is discrimination.[/b]
Oh, please, not the green and blue person argument. I firmly believe in discrimination against green and blue people, because green people are aliens and blue people are zombies.
[ 16 August 2007: Message edited by: Makwa ]
Thu, 2007-08-16 10:22
#13
quote:
Originally posted by Fearghail:
...He [b]was[/b] black.
you mean he isn't black any more?
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2007-08-16 10:23
#14
Makwa
quote:
Originally posted by farnival:
[b]you mean he isn't black any more?[/b]
I hope he isn't blue now.
Thu, 2007-08-16 10:23
#15
quote:
Originally posted by Fearghail:
[b]What I am saying is right and true.[/b]
Well it's certainly "right".
I wonder if this guy has speech-to-text software. It's the only way I can account for his ability to post here using rhetorical flourishes like addressing his audience as "Sir" while wanking away at his logical phallusies -- all with two right wings where most of us would have arms and hands. A baffling visitor, this is.
Thu, 2007-08-16 10:23
#16
Fearghail, I suggest you familiarize yourself with babble's policy statement before posting here. Here's a part of it for you:
quote:
babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and essential values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism, and labour rights are to be debated or refought. Members that join babble who indicate intentions to challenge these rights and principles may be seen as disruptive to the nature of the forum. Such members may be warned, have their accounts suspended, or banned altogether. Repeated attempts to provoke conflict, bait or taunt will not be tolerated.
This thread is not in keeping with the [b]anti-racist[/b] spirit of this forum, so I'm closing it.