Serving and protecting citizens has been used by bigots to justify their racism and xenophobia for a very long time. However their protection and care is only provided for certain groups.
That list really has some silly examples on it (being a NYT opinion list) I googled it before you posted because I assumed you would respond with the first article you came across I can go through them one by one if you want.
If you think you have valid, sourced arguments to counter the very good evidence that Trump is a racist, rather than continue the argument here, then go and "fight the good fight" on Wikipedia here:
What's your point or intention? To deny Trump is a racist?
No I don't know the guy.
But to educate you simply that everything he is doing cannot just be put down to racism there are other perfectly rational reasons for him doing things such as border security.
Serving and protecting citizens has been used by bigots to justify their racism and xenophobia for a very long time. However their protection and care is only provided for certain groups.
Is that not circular reasoning?
No.
Protecting citizens inherently not racist or xenophobic even though throughout time it has been used to justify acts of violence against various groups.
Serving and protecting citizens has been used by bigots to justify their racism and xenophobia for a very long time. However their protection and care is only provided for certain groups.
Is that not circular reasoning?
No.
Protecting citizens inherently not racist or xenophobic even though throughout time it has been used to justify acts of violence against various groups.
A circular argument would be something leading to a logical fallacy like:
Obama pledged to serve and protect citizens.
Serving and protecting citizens has been used by bigots to justify their racism and xenophobia.
Therefore Obama was racist and xenophobic
And that is actually an incredibly stupid argument you were making.
Stan: Also Obama was for throwing federal funding towards border security so was Bill Clinton and Bush (I can throw you links of them talking about this) are they racist and xenophobic for saying such things too?
Serving and protecting citizens has been used by bigots to justify their racism and xenophobia for a very long time. However their protection and care is only provided for certain groups.
Is that not circular reasoning?
No.
Protecting citizens inherently not racist or xenophobic even though throughout time it has been used to justify acts of violence against various groups.
A circular argument would be something leading to a logical fallacy like:
Obama pledged to serve and protect citizens.
Serving and protecting citizens has been used by bigots to justify their racism and xenophobia.
Therefore Obama was racist and xenophobic
And that is actually an incredibly stupid argument you were making above.
I assume you think everything I post on this thread is stupid forgive me if I don't take it to heart.
I stand by that argument, having controlled immigration for the protection of citizens is neither racist or xenophobic.
I stand by that argument, having controlled immigration for the protection of citizens is neither racist or xenophobic.
I agree with that.
As long as said protection is not carried out in a racial or xenophobic manner. That is the difference between someone like Obama (or insert most other politicians here) and Trump.
Notwithstanding that all first world countries have controlled immigration.
I assume you think everything I post on this thread is stupid forgive me if I don't take it to heart.
I stand by that argument, having controlled immigration for the protection of citizens is neither racist or xenophobic.
No - I think that when you post stupid fallacious arguments - as shown - those arguments should be challenged and called out for what they are.
Especially so - when you're clearly denying an obviously racist agenda by Trump.
Okay just so we are clear perhaps I misunderstood your first argument:
You think Trump beefing up border security is a racist act because you believe him to be racist but others doing it like Obama are not racist because you believe them not to be racist but border protection is xenophobic but because you do not think Obama was not racist or xenophobic protecting putting more money into border security like he did was not a xenophobic act?
I don't want to strawman you but I do want to understand you so correct me if im wrong.
I assume you think everything I post on this thread is stupid forgive me if I don't take it to heart.
I stand by that argument, having controlled immigration for the protection of citizens is neither racist or xenophobic.
No - I think that when you post stupid fallacious arguments - as shown - those arguments should be challenged and called out for what they are.
Especially so - when you're clearly denying an obviously racist agenda by Trump.
Okay just so we are clear perhaps I misunderstood your first argument:
You think Trump beefing up border security is a racist act because you believe him to be racist but others doing it like Obama are not racist because you believe them not to be racist but border protection is xenophobic but because you do not think Obama was not racist or xenophobic protecting putting more money into border security like he did was not a xenophobic act?
I don't want to strawman you but I do want to understand you so correct me if im wrong.
You are trying to create a strawman, but I'll play your stupid game.
From an etymological perspective (xenos = "foreign" phobos = "fear"), putting up a barrier to free movement of foreigners into your country because you are afraid that some of those foreigners may be a risk is by literal definition "xenophobic" - but may be justified and is not (necessarily) racist.
Stereotyping entire groups of people - as Trump does - be they from "sh*thole countries", or that they're "rapists and murderers" is racist. Trump is racist. Simple.
I assume you think everything I post on this thread is stupid forgive me if I don't take it to heart.
I stand by that argument, having controlled immigration for the protection of citizens is neither racist or xenophobic.
No - I think that when you post stupid fallacious arguments - as shown - those arguments should be challenged and called out for what they are.
Especially so - when you're clearly denying an obviously racist agenda by Trump.
Okay just so we are clear perhaps I misunderstood your first argument:
You think Trump beefing up border security is a racist act because you believe him to be racist but others doing it like Obama are not racist because you believe them not to be racist but border protection is xenophobic but because you do not think Obama was not racist or xenophobic protecting putting more money into border security like he did was not a xenophobic act?
I don't want to strawman you but I do want to understand you so correct me if im wrong.
You are trying to create a strawman, but I'll play your stupid game.
From an etymological perspective (xenos = "foreign" phobos = "fear"), putting up a barrier to free movement of foreigners into your country because you are afraid that some of those foreigners may be a risk is by literal definition "xenophobic" - but may be justified and is not (necessarily) racist.
Stereotyping entire groups of people - as Trump does - be they from "sh*thole countries", or that they're "rapists and murderers" is racist. Trump is racist. Simple.
No I was not I was simply trying to understand your point of view so I typed out what I thought you meant and invited you to correct me that's not a strawman i'm not asserting your position, im asking if my understanding of it is correct.
So a xenophobic act can be justified because of something along the lines of cultural differences or a sort of race realism argument?
No I was not I was simply trying to understand your point of view so I typed out what I thought you meant and invited you to correct me that's not a strawman i'm not asserting your position, im asking if my understanding of it is correct.
So a xenophobic act can be justified because of something along the lines of cultural differences or a sort ofrace realism argument?
No - absolutely NOT. If that's your argument, then shame on you - if you're trying to attribute that despicable statement to me in any way, then at best you're being extremely foolish.
That's what Hitler argued - and then killed millions.
(Note that there's an exclusion to the "Godwin's" rule for this thread - but in any case I'm certain that Godwin himself would accept that any argument attempting to legitimise / justify "race realism" deserves 100% direct comparison with Hitler and Nazism).
No I was not I was simply trying to understand your point of view so I typed out what I thought you meant and invited you to correct me that's not a strawman i'm not asserting your position, im asking if my understanding of it is correct.
So a xenophobic act can be justified because of something along the lines of cultural differences or a sort ofrace realism argument?
No - absolutely NOT. If that's your argument, then shame on you - if you're trying to attribute that despicable statement to me in any way, then at best you're being extremely foolish.
That's what Hitler argued - and then killed millions.
(Note that there's an exclusion to the "Godwin's" rule for this thread - but in any case I'm certain that Godwin himself would accept that any argument attempting to legitimise / justify "race realism" deserves 100% direct comparison with Hitler and Nazism).
I outlined my arguments in a previous post against uncontrolled immigration "uncontrolled immigration can undermine your citizens in so far as democracy, public services, culture and national identity" im curious to see what you would think justifies it as you believe it to be xenophobic?
I outlined my arguments in a previous post against uncontrolled immigration "uncontrolled immigration can undermine your citizens in so far as democracy, public services, culture and national identity" im curious to see what you would think justifies it as you believe it to be xenophobic?
You're not making any sense and going round in ever decreasing circles repeating BS.
I've not argued for "uncontrolled immigration".
Trump's been repeatedly defeated in the courts for his attempt to introduce an unconstitutional "muslim ban".
I explained very clearly what "xenophobic" literally means, and you very clearly don't make any attempt to even understand that simple fact.
I outlined my arguments in a previous post against uncontrolled immigration "uncontrolled immigration can undermine your citizens in so far as democracy, public services, culture and national identity" im curious to see what you would think justifies it as you believe it to be xenophobic?
You're not making any sense and going round in ever decreasing circles repeating BS.
I've not argued for "uncontrolled immigration".
Trump's been repeatedly defeated in the courts for his attempt to introduce an unconstitutional "muslim ban".
I explained very clearly what "xenophobic" literally means, and you very clearly don't make any attempt to even understand that simple fact.
I think you have explained your position well enough it just makes no sense because you say that border security is xenophobic.
"I disagree - having a clearly defined border wall is xenophobic"
So if that is your understanding of border security then you have a moral issue on your hands because you can't protect your border as that is xenophobic but you are not for uncontrolled immigration so how do you justify doing the xenophobic act and have border security.
I outlined my arguments in a previous post against uncontrolled immigration "uncontrolled immigration can undermine your citizens in so far as democracy, public services, culture and national identity" im curious to see what you would think justifies it as you believe it to be xenophobic?
You're not making any sense and going round in ever decreasing circles repeating BS.
I've not argued for "uncontrolled immigration".
Trump's been repeatedly defeated in the courts for his attempt to introduce an unconstitutional "muslim ban".
I explained very clearly what "xenophobic" literally means, and you very clearly don't make any attempt to even understand that simple fact.
I think you have explained your position well enough it just makes no sense because you say that border security is xenophobic.
"I disagree - having a clearly defined border wall is xenophobic"
So if that is your understanding of border security then you have a moral issue on your hands because you can't protect your border as that is xenophobic but you are not for uncontrolled immigration so how do you justify doing the xenophobic act and have border security.
Around and around you go with your strawman arguments, logical fallacies, and complete lack of comprehension of what's been said.
I said:
From an etymological perspective (xenos = "foreign" phobos = "fear"), putting up a barrier to free movement of foreigners into your country because you are afraid that some of those foreigners may be a risk is by literal definition "xenophobic" - but may be justified and is not (necessarily) racist.
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
Trusted
