dukeuch
10-11-2003, 08:38 AM
I hate to stir up trouble (actually, that's a lie) but I need to respond to an accusation in a closed thread.
Political discussions will often be very contentious. Everyone who takes the time respond to the posts in this particular forum will do so because they have very closely held beliefs. These beliefs are shaped by the world around them, but also shape the person's interpretation of the world around them. So people with different backgrounds, experiences, etc. will both see and interpret world events differently.
If a person uses his or her ethnicity to support an arguement they are making concerning race in terms of "since I am (put enthnicity here) I have some special insight in this issue" then the veracity of their claim that they are indeed a member of a particular ethnic group is important. I had doubted a person's claim that they are of a particular ethnicity in such an arguement. I do not feel this is in any way a personal attack, but a questioning of their "facts". I have confronted similar claims of "IQ scores in the 140s" to counter claims of the lack of a basic understanding of data as B.S.
I could care less what a person's IQ or race is, unless they use it as an integral part of their logic in supporting their position. If I feel they are being less than truthful, I'll call them, realizing I may be wrong.
In my opinion, calling B.S. in such situations clearly does not fall into the area of an attack on someone personally, but an attack on the veracity of the facts they bring to the arguement. I believe this is an important distinction, and hope most here would agree.
Political discussions will often be very contentious. Everyone who takes the time respond to the posts in this particular forum will do so because they have very closely held beliefs. These beliefs are shaped by the world around them, but also shape the person's interpretation of the world around them. So people with different backgrounds, experiences, etc. will both see and interpret world events differently.
If a person uses his or her ethnicity to support an arguement they are making concerning race in terms of "since I am (put enthnicity here) I have some special insight in this issue" then the veracity of their claim that they are indeed a member of a particular ethnic group is important. I had doubted a person's claim that they are of a particular ethnicity in such an arguement. I do not feel this is in any way a personal attack, but a questioning of their "facts". I have confronted similar claims of "IQ scores in the 140s" to counter claims of the lack of a basic understanding of data as B.S.
I could care less what a person's IQ or race is, unless they use it as an integral part of their logic in supporting their position. If I feel they are being less than truthful, I'll call them, realizing I may be wrong.
In my opinion, calling B.S. in such situations clearly does not fall into the area of an attack on someone personally, but an attack on the veracity of the facts they bring to the arguement. I believe this is an important distinction, and hope most here would agree.