| True or False: People who dislike people because they are racist are racists. |
|
|
|
Asked 213 days ago
by BruceLee  United States |
|
About
Turtles Are Awesome!!!Especially when they are ninja!
|
| 12 Points |
No, the fact that you dislike someone's beliefs is, by definition, not racist.
Now, if you think they believe what they believe because of their race, then that would be racist.
Exactly.
Let's try another analogy constructed in exactly the same way. People who dislike people because they are murderers are murderers.
See? False premise.
False construction. Racists are "people who *dislike* people" because of their race, while murderers are "people who *murder* people", so the parallel construction would be "People who murder people because they are murderers are murderers," which is true in most cases.
I would assert it is prejudice to assert someone is prejudiced without evidence, but then what would that make me?
Evil is evil.
Indeed, a tautology. But if an answer and "prejudging" is synonymous with "prejudice", are you saying it is evil to assert that "people who prejudge people because they are prejudgers are prejudgers"? Just trying to clarify.
No, a parallel construction would be more like, "People who dislike people because they are murderers also murder people." The initial "dislike" is a function of the comparison, not a statement of a quality.
The initial "dislike" is clearly intended to be part of a definition of what a racist is or might be. Racists dislike, but murderers murder. To transform only part of the construction without transforming it consistently is an easily-spotted logical fallacy. I agree that disliking a racist doesn't make one a racist; I'm just pointing out one particular argument in agreement with my conclusion happens to be problematic.
No, that's wrong. Your construction misses the point of the question. The comparison is only necessary because the question is being asked at all. If it were constructed as you say, it would never be asked and therefore have no reason to be asked in that manner. You're mistaking the use of the word "dislike" as a function of racism and putting it in place of a use of the word "dislike" that has an entirely different function.
"Easily-spotted logical fallacy" - give me a break.
Perhaps my use of such an obvious term isn't perfect either; racists are not the only people who dislike, but murderers are the only people who murder. Maybe I should have replaced "dislike" with a more general term like "kill", so the better parallel would be "People who kill people because they are murderers are also murderers," which is not always true unless you equate capital punishment with murder, as some do, and thus debate ensues. Still, it's not valid to change "racist" to something no longer contingent upon "dislike", while leaving "dislike" unchanged.
It is a matter of degree, not kind. Both racists and murderers assume the other is not quite human. One deprives the victim of liberty, the right to earn a living, respectful treatment, etc; the other deprives the victim of live itself.
It is a matter of threshold requirement, not degree. Merely disliking someone *can* be enough to make one a racist, while merely disliking someone is *never* enough to make one a murderer. So, changing "racist" to "murderer" while leaving "dislike" constant fails to result in a parallel construction.
Tell that to the family of every black man who was lynched.
I'm not denying that racists can murder. I'm just saying murder is not a minimal qualification for being a racist, but dislike can be.
And I am arguing that both grow from treating people as 'other'.
Agreed that it is common, although there are many motives for murder. But when the question is about what qualifies someone to be something, a parallel construction involving something else must also be about qualifications; whether the two topics have tangential similarities is rather irrelevant.
We could just as easily compare the question to "People who like people because they are friendly are friendly." Who would argue the transformation is valid because some racists occasionally act friendly toward some people? If the transformation is valid, it is for other reasons.
People who treat other people as less than human treat other people as less than human.
That describes both racism and murder.
Another tautology, with which I have already agreed. But again, not of parallel construction to the original question.
It's more like the ones that go around calling other people racist are possibly the racists.
Perhaps bigots, but not racists.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 210 days ago by deleted user Reply