I showed that by many metrics, he is being "rational".
I disagree that you've shown him to be rational.
Ok, then do so.
Quote from Bundy »
They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton,"
Learning to pick cotton is not a rational argument as to why people abort their children or go to jail.
And I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy?
This implies black people have only two options, picking cotton or government subsidy. We know this to be untrue.
They didn't get no more freedom. They got less freedom
Do I need to explain why this is wrong?
Yet--either way--I have a feeling it will come down to the interpretation of the numbers, not empirical evidence.
I think in most cases the numbers are irrelevant. Correlation does not imply causation. I think it comes down to a simple exercise in logic.
Ok, then do so.
But, remember, he likely didn't mean "all" or even "most;" he likely meant "many." I will also note that while you claim it's 'easy' to disprove stereotypes, I hold that it is not. But, I've been wrong before; I look forward to your proof. However, I don't look forward to the counterclaims I will likely have to make against it. I'm sure I'm going to have to bring up the white/black IQ gap, and racial crime statistics. Data tends to support stereotypes, a bit of a chicken or egg problem. But, maybe you know of hard empirical evidence to disprove all that and show conclusively how wrong Mr. Bundy is. Yet--either way--I have a feeling it will come down to the interpretation of the numbers, not empirical evidence.
But, let's say it does not. Let's say you're a psychology/biology professor with a specialty in human phenotype that has access to tests no one has ever seen. Let's say, right here on this thread, you break the differences in black/white performances wide open, right up to three-sigma. Let's say in the next two pages of this forum you PROVE, conclusively, that Mr. Bundy is completely and utterly wrong. Your work, first revealed here, echos down the ages and withstands the test of time to be show ultimately correct by history.
But--even if you do all that--Mr. Bundy will not have had access to those numbers. He, like the rest of us, will not have known of your groundbreaking and profound work. So, does that mean everyone--BUT YOU--wasn't making a "rational argument?" Is deep and complete understanding necessarily to make a "rational argument," such that only a psychology/biology professor with a specialty in human phenotype COULD make statements about race and not be "racist?"
...
Sometimes I'm flabbergasted by the things I read here. How does someone who has been posting on and reading a debate forum for at least five years not have at least a rough inkling of what constitutes a rational argument? It's got nothing to do with having access to every fact in the universe or some unimpeachable insight into ultimate truth. It has to do with things like argumentative structure, logical validity, soundness, and burdens of proof.
Mr. Bundy's argument can immediately be seen to be irrational. In fact, we can already judge it irrational by the time he utters his third sentence. He claims, on the basis of anecdotal evidence alone, that there are "always at least half a dozen people sitting on the porch" of a particular housing development in North Las Vegas. Really? Always? At least? Proof please? Undischarged burden.
Not that it would matter even if he did provide such proof, because he then goes on to reason from the specific to the general by attempting to induct his anecdotal observations of that single housing project up to the entire monolithic entity he calls "the Negro." That's a formal fallacy. (Not to mention his monolithization of a race, which is at the very least controversial, or, as I would argue, outright fallacious in itself.)
He then proceeds to assert a completely unargued-for connection between picking cotton of all things and criminal behavior and abortion. All of these are bare assertions and non sequiturs. Fallacy after fallacy. Then he equates slavery with freedom, which is a logical contradiction. Fallacy.
In fact his entire argument is nothing but a long string of tedious fallacies, bare assertions, anecdotal evidence, and non sequiturs. If someone were to copy and paste his words into a debate forum post here it wouldn't take anyone more than a second to identify the problems in the argument and demolish it -- despite the fact that none of us have access to all the ultimate truths about race. I truly do not understand how there is even a scintilla of controversy as to whether or not Cliven Bundy is making a rational argument here. He's not.
Rationality is not a performance art or a state of mind. It doesn't matter how nice you are or how much you think you're being rational. Ultimately it's a check against some observable criteria -- and while there may be some controversy in the most rarefied heights of epistemics on just what those criteria are, I assure you that Cliven Bundy doesn't meet any sane version of it.
Sometimes I'm flabbergasted by the things I read here. How does someone who has been posting on and reading a debate forum for at least five years not have at least a rough inkling of what constitutes a rational argument? It's got nothing to do with having access to every fact in the universe or some unimpeachable insight into ultimate truth. It has to do with things like argumentative structure, logical validity, soundness, and burdens of proof.
I have a "rough inkling" of what I mean by it, but I didn't ask you for my definition of the term, did I? I'm not a mind reader. I didn't know what passed for a "rational argument" in that head of yours, Crashing00.
Please remember, I debate primarily to understand the way other people think better. The structure of arguments--and the thoughts guiding them--are more interesting to me than the conclusions.
Honestly, I'm flabbergasted that you're flabbergasted. You say a rational argument is one that shoulders the burden. You told me that an irrational argument is necessary to be racist. So, when I ask you to shoulder the burdened and EXPLAIN what you mean by that, suddenly I get: "Sometimes I'm flabbergasted by the things I read here. How does someone who has been posting on and reading a debate forum for at least five years not have at least a rough inkling of what constitutes a rational argument?"
So, you're saying rational arguments are when someone shoulders the burden of proof, but when someone asks YOU to shoulder the burden of proof by way of clarification, your response is complete indignation? Like it's beneath you to do so?
Not that it would matter even if he did provide such proof, because he then goes on to reason from the specific to the general by attempting to induct his anecdotal observations of that single housing project up to the entire monolithic entity he calls "the Negro." That's a formal fallacy. (Not to mention his monolithization of a race, which is at the very least controversial, or, as I would argue, outright fallacious in itself.)
He then proceeds to assert a completely unargued-for connection between picking cotton of all things and criminal behavior and abortion. All of these are bare assertions and non sequiturs. Fallacy after fallacy. Then he equates slavery with freedom, which is a logical contradiction. Fallacy.
In fact his entire argument is nothing but a long string of tedious fallacies, bare assertions, anecdotal evidence, and non sequiturs. If someone were to copy and paste his words into a debate forum post here it wouldn't take anyone more than a second to identify the problems in the argument and demolish it -- despite the fact that none of us have access to all the ultimate truths about race. I truly do not understand how there is even a scintilla of controversy as to whether or not Cliven Bundy is making a rational argument here. He's not.
Fair points all.
I would whole heartily agree that Bundy fits your criteria for "racist" because his arguments don't met your criteria for being rational arguments. My stating premise in this thread is that Bundy is an ignorant bigot. I'm not going back on either of those assertions.
So, I'm going to have to start reaching outside of Bundy and KKK members to show why I still disagree with your definition. If you could, stay with me, Crashing00, into the next section.
I shouldered burden of proof. I brought empirical data backing Bundy up, and brought reasons explaining why his argument was likely non-contradictory (which you showed to be untrue, Crashing00). Up until his last post, billydaman did neither of those things. So, if billydaman felt my argument for Bundy's rationality was inadequate, I can assume billydaman felt his own argument against Bundy's rationality is doubly so (at least until his last post).
Additionally, would you, Crashing00, have claimed billydaman (up until his last post) was being racist for condemning Bundy, but I wasn't being racist for defending Bundy because I was shouldering the burden of proof? No--Crashing00--of course you wouldn't. It's ridiculous for me to even suggest that. But why, if the burden matters?
No, of course you would not. A well read racist shouldering the burden of proof is STILL a racist. You don't get a free pass just because you're knowledgeable and articulate.
So, again, I reject this definition of yours because it leads to nonsense. Aside
Rationality is not a performance art or a state of mind. It doesn't matter how nice you are or how much you think you're being rational. Ultimately it's a check against some observable criteria -- and while there may be some controversy in the most rarefied heights of epistemics on just what those criteria are, I assure you that Cliven Bundy doesn't meet any sane version of it.
My statements about "being polite" were not made in response to the definition you put forth. They were mainly made before you joined the discussion and were about the "derogatory" definition others put forth. You were (one of?//the first?) ones who first started using "rational" as a criteria. Others on the thread integrated it into their own definition only after you mentioned it.
I'm lost as to what your point is. If you think providing irrelevant empirical evidence somehow validates an argument, well good for you. Storm front uses the empirical evidence to obfuscate the issue and I agree, they are very clever at it.
Caucasians are inherently more intelligent than African Americans
Quote from in the first few paragraphs or pro"s argument »
After all, if genetics play any role in the higher IQs observed in Caucasian Americans, then Caucasian Americans are "inherently" more intelligent.
So, what I have to do in this debate is show that Caucasian Americans have higher average IQs than African Americans, and that this is influenced, at least partially, by genetic factors.
Quote from second or third rebuttal way down the page of pro"s argument »
My opponent has an odd view of what this debate is about. He basically claims that I have to show that there is some genetic link between race and intelligence.This would lead me to having to defend the absurd position that all whites are smarter than all blacks. As I said, that is clearly not true.
Although tedious, its rather easy to see the not so subtle pivots in pro's argument.
My point was mainly for Crushing00 about his post; not to trivialize your own post, billydaman. It was a fine post.
Anyway, the CliffsNotes version of my point is just because someone shoulders the burden of proof (i.e. makes a 'rational argument' as Crushing00 defines it) doesn't mean they're automatically exempt from being racist. That's why I put in bold: A well read racist shouldering the burden of proof is STILL a racist. That was the main crux of my argument.
Does that clear things up a bit for you, billydaman?
I'm lost as to what your point is. If you think providing irrelevant empirical evidence somehow validates an argument, well good for you. Storm front uses the empirical evidence to obfuscate the issue and I agree, they are very clever at it.
My point was mainly for Crushing00 about his post; not to trivialize your own post, billydaman. It was a fine post.
Anyway, the CliffsNotes version of my point is just because someone shoulders the burden of proof (i.e. makes a 'rational argument' as Crushing00 defines it) doesn't mean they're automatically exempt from being racist. That's why I put in bold: A well read racist shouldering the burden of proof is STILL a racist. That was the main crux of my argument.
Does that clear things up a bit for you, billydaman?
It's absurd. It seems to me you think of rational argument is only about showing empirical evidence or using big words but they must also be able to apply and demonstrate why that evidence is pertinent in a logical, sound way that will stand up to scrutiny.
I'll make it simple for you, name the only logical reason to measure racial superiority at an activity (A: its to find out racial superiority) then tell me why its rational to find out which race is inherently superior. No matter how much evidence, statistics or facts you produce nothing changes the irrationality of measuring racial superiority. This central idea has been the primary logic to destroy arguments such as privilege or any other fundamentally racist premise. There is no need to read the evidence, statistics or data.
You refute the entire premise of a debate centering around racial superiority due to the irrational nature of it. It is not sane to think the color of your skin has any bearing on your abilities or characteristics as a human being, other than the color of your skin. You are essentially arguing which color of the pie has the best inherent qualities..
It's absurd. It seems to me you think of rational argument is only about showing empirical evidence or using big words but they must also be able to apply and demonstrate why that evidence is pertinent in a logical, sound way that will stand up to scrutiny.
What's absurd is you thinking my response to your definition of 'rational argument' would be the same my response to Crushing00's definition, when they're different definitions. It's clear from the rest of your post you don't even understand/accept the difference between logic and reason. So, OF COURSE you disagree with my response to Crushing00, since it's based on completely different axioms.
I CAN respond to Crushing00 because he gave me a clear definition I can work with, mainly 'an argument that shoulders the burden of proof,' <-THAT is what I'm responding to; not whatever you're going on about.
I can't really respond to you because you're using things like 'reason' and 'logic' interchangeably. I'm going to need you to clarify what you mean by those terms, as Crushing00 has done. I can't properly disagree with something ill-defined. I need to understand an argument before I can accurately explain why it's wrong.
There is no need to read the evidence, statistics or data.
If you have no intention of reading evidence, statistics, or data, then there really isn't much of a point in me typing things in your direction, is there?
If you have no intention of reading evidence, statistics, or data, then there really isn't much of a point in me typing things in your direction, is there?
Give me a rational reason to rank the inherent characteristics of a color, this is exactly what you do when you say black anything is better than white anything.
I'll make it simple for you, name the only logical reason to measure racial superiority at an activity (A: its to find out racial superiority) then tell me why its rational to find out which race is inherently superior. No matter how much evidence, statistics or facts you produce nothing changes the irrationality of measuring racial superiority. This central idea has been the primary logic to destroy arguments such as privilege or any other fundamentally racist premise. There is no need to read the evidence, statistics or data.
You refute the entire premise of a debate centering around racial superiority due to the irrational nature of it. It is not sane to think the color of your skin has any bearing on your abilities or characteristics as a human being, other than the color of your skin. You are essentially arguing which color of the pie has the best inherent qualities..
IDK, it seems like there are a number of decision making processes for which knowing "racial superiority" for a given activity could be useful. If I have to pick a team of basketball players and all I have to go on is skin color it would be useful for me to know that people of one color tend to be best at the sport, yes?
IDK, it seems like there are a number of decision making processes for which knowing "racial superiority" for a given activity could be useful. If I have to pick a team of basketball players and all I have to go on is skin color it would be useful for me to know that people of one color tend to be best at the sport, yes?
Can you please tell us the inherent characteristics of the color black?
IDK, it seems like there are a number of decision making processes for which knowing "racial superiority" for a given activity could be useful. If I have to pick a team of basketball players and all I have to go on is skin color it would be useful for me to know that people of one color tend to be best at the sport, yes?
Can you please tell us the inherent characteristics of the color black?
Of the very darkest color, owing to the absence of or complete absorption of light. Relevance?
Of the very darkest color, owing to the absence of or complete absorption of light. Relevance?
So nothing in there about basketball? Am I right?
Again, relevance? Not sure how discussing the characteristics of the literal color is useful here. (when we know that color in the context of race can be linked to various traits)
Again, relevance? Not sure how discussing the characteristics of the literal color is useful here. (when we know that color in the context of race can be linked to various traits)
You are selecting a team of basketball players solely based on the color of their skin. I bet I could build a better basketball team by looking at the shoes they are wearing. I disagree, I think the color of a persons skin is an indicator of nothing more than color of their skin.
when we know that color in the context of race can be linked to various traits
Color of skin magically provides traits to people? This is not a sane argument.
Obviously, I'm pointing out the irrelevance of skin color when it comes to determining the basketball skill of a human being.
Again, relevance? Not sure how discussing the characteristics of the literal color is useful here. (when we know that color in the context of race can be linked to various traits)
You are selecting a team of basketball players solely based on the color of their skin. I bet I could build a better basketball team by looking at the shoes they are wearing. I disagree, I think the color of a persons skin is an indicator of nothing more than color of their skin.
when we know that color in the context of race can be linked to various traits
Color of skin magically provides traits to people? This is not a sane argument.
Obviously, I'm pointing out the irrelevance of skin color when it comes to determining the basketball skill of a human being.
Straw man much?
Obviously the color of the skin isn't magically providing traits. But OTOH we do know that the same gene pool that provides that color also tends to produce other traits. Knowledge of those traits and how they correlate with race could conceivably be useful in MANY decision making processes, something you denied but I showed you with a very simple example.
Lets take another example: Say we are vaccinating for a disease and we know that people of race X are most susceptible to the disease. With limited quantities of the vaccine available we have to choose who gets the vaccine. We can ignore race and apply the vaccine randomly, or we can consider race and apply accordingly. The latter will have higher efficacy, yes?
It's not a straw man. The observance of racial disparity of people playing basketball on TV is not a valid indicator of skill for any random person. You are basically picking people based on color. Say you can only look and examine their skin color and I can look and examine their shoes. I would be willing to bet the results of my team will outshine yours. Another example. The best basketball players are often tall but this does not make all tall people better basketball players.
Obviously the color of the skin isn't magically providing traits. But OTOH we do know that the same gene pool that provides that color also tends to produce other traits. Knowledge of those traits and how they correlate with race could conceivably be useful in MANY decision making processes, something you denied but I showed you with a very simple example.
I still deny it. The observance of racial disparity of people playing basketball on TV is not a valid indicator of skill for any random person. You are basically picking people based on color.
Lets take another example: Say we are vaccinating for a disease and we know that people of race X are most susceptible to the disease. With limited quantities of the vaccine available we have to choose who gets the vaccine. We can ignore race and apply the vaccine randomly, or we can consider race and apply accordingly. The latter will have higher efficacy, yes?
I refute the premise. You only provide two options for the application. Random or by race. Maybe a simple test will produce the best candidates for the vacine. Your hypothetical leaves a lot to be desired. I do not accept a premise that holds absolutely that one race is more susceptible than another. You've designed your hypothetical in such a way it can only lead to one conclusion, when if allowed to take in other much more reliable variables and evidence (such as testing for the disease) the answer will possibly change.
Study after study has indicated geographical and culture conditions is more responsible for medical conditions than the color of skin. While you can attempt to use race to determine a characteristic, its unreliable, mostly because its just a color and too broad of a identifier to determine any random individuals characteristics.
It doesn't need to be 100% reliable, or the best indicator, in order to be a useful one. You were the one who made the blanket claims about the absolute uselessness of considering race in this regard.
"Another example. The best basketball players are often tall but this does not make all tall people better basketball players."
This is a perfect example of your flawed logic. They don't ALL have to be better for it to be a useful trait in decision making. You can quibble over exactly how useful it is, but ultimately as long as it has some usefulness your earlier claim is false.
Similarly with your refutation of my premise, just think a little bit further. Sure, there might be even better indicators of who would be the best candidates. But the best approach would probably involve considering ALL useful factors, including race. And imagine treating a large poor population with limited funding and vaccine supplies (i.e. much aid work in 3rd world situations). It is entirely possible that you won't be able to do much screening/testing to pick best candidates (and testing for the disease itself wouldn't make much sense given that we are talking about a preventative measure).
And why wouldn't you accept a premise that involves one race being more susceptible to a disease than another? Do you not accept that differences in skin color are also typically linked with numerous other biological differences? I mean it isn't like skin color is the only difference between people of different races. Even from the exterior you can see physiological trends that differ between races. And that holds true when you look at the genetics.
You keep saying "its just a color" but in reality that isn't true. That skin color carries SO much more information than that, because we know that so many other things tend to be linked to it. On a micro scale you are mostly right, skin color alone won't tell you much about an individual in terms of absolute truths. But once you expand your view, and start thinking in probabilistic terms, that is no longer the case. At that level all of the traits/characteristics known to be linked to a given race can be useful.
It doesn't need to be 100% reliable, or the best indicator, in order to be a useful one. You were the one who made the blanket claims about the absolute uselessness of considering race in this regard.
No, I said it was irrational. I've never speak in absolutes, or at least try not. I think observing skin color is useful in determing race, not basketball skills.
At that level all of the traits/characteristics known to be linked to a given race can be useful.
Its irrational to use skin color to determine who plays basketball better. Of all the measurables you can use to determine skill, race is one of the most arbitary metrics. Race is not a factor when professional sports teams select a player in the draft and they are known to measure everything about an athlete.
Your words: "It is not sane to think the color of your skin has any bearing on your abilities or characteristics as a human being, other than the color of your skin."
Sounds pretty absolute. How did you expect that sentiment to be received? And more importantly, why would you possibly think that was true? Do you not understand that people with the genes that provide a given skin color also tend to share numerous other traits? Or do you actually deny that?
I have a "rough inkling" of what I mean by it, but I didn't ask you for my definition of the term, did I? I'm not a mind reader. I didn't know what passed for a "rational argument" in that head of yours, Crashing00.
For heaven's sake, man, you don't have to read my mind. We both know what rational arguments are, or at least we should:
You are behaving as though this is a controversial matter, yet you have been posting and reading a debate forum for many years and on that forum there is, in fact, a minimum established standard for what constitutes a rational argument that both you and I are fully aware of. Obviously we both agree to that minimum standard or we wouldn't be posting here. So why on earth are you attempting to generate controversy here? There shouldn't be any, there needn't be any, and as far as I'm concerned, there isn't any.
So, you're saying rational arguments are when someone shoulders the burden of proof, but when someone asks YOU to shoulder the burden of proof by way of clarification, your response is complete indignation? Like it's beneath you to do so?
What on earth are you talking about? You asked for a demonstration of why Cliven Bundy's argument is irrational. I provided that demonstration by analyzing his argument and pointing out fallacies, invalidities, and undischarged burdens. Of course there's every possibility that I made a mistake somewhere, in which case I invite you to specifically identify it -- but for you to insinuate that I didn't engage with my burden is just false.
Fair points all. I would whole heartily agree that Bundy fits your criteria for "racist" because his arguments don't met your criteria for being rational arguments.
Okay, so now I've met my burden? That was a quick change of heart.
My stating premise in this thread is that Bundy is an ignorant bigot. I'm not going back on either of those assertions.
Nor should you, because he is. The question before my mind was never one of defending Cliven Bundy. Just about every definition under consideration here makes him into a racist.
I shouldered burden of proof. I brought empirical data backing Bundy up, and brought reasons explaining why his argument was likely non-contradictory (which you showed to be untrue, Crashing00).
I don't understand the problem. Billydaman was quite right to be unconvinced by your argument that Bundy's argument was rational, because it was clearly wrong. Bravo for collecting empirical data or whatever, but no amount of work that you do could ever make Cliven Bundy's argument, which must be considered on its own merits, rational.
Now, you may have, in the course of collecting your own empirical data, have come up with your own rational argument for why black people were better off enslaved. That would be Taylor's rational argument for black slavery, not Cliven Bundy's.
If Taylor's argument that black people are better off enslaved is rational, so be it, but I doubt it. That doesn't make Cliven Bundy's argument rational. His is clearly irrational by inspection. So that should completely end the controversy between you and billy about that particular issue.
Up until his last post, billydaman did neither of those things. So, if billydaman felt my argument for Bundy's rationality was inadequate, I can assume billydaman felt his own argument against Bundy's rationality is doubly so (at least until his last post).
I'm afraid you've lost me. A judgment that your arguments are inadequate doesn't force any judgment whatsoever against any other argument. It could be that billy's arguments are inadequate, he knows that, and he still thinks yours are inadequate. There's nothing inconsistent about that position.
Additionally, would you, Crashing00, have claimed billydaman (up until his last post) was being racist for condemning Bundy, but I wasn't being racist for defending Bundy because I was shouldering the burden of proof? No--Crashing00--of course you wouldn't. It's ridiculous for me to even suggest that. But why, if the burden matters?
...
What are you talking about?
First of all, neither of you are being racist concerning Bundy, because your judgments concerning Bundy are not based on race. So that's a non-starter from the beginning.
Second of all, you continue to have bizarre ideas about what constitutes rational argumentation. Failing to shoulder a burden of proof is one reason an argument can fail to be rational. There are others. For instance, soundness and validity are important requirements of a rational argument.
Third of all, since neither of you are being racist, it seems that the question really boils down to "amongst Taylor and billydaman, who is making rational arguments?" The best judgment I can render at this time is "neither of them." You have just admitted that my argument shows Bundy to be irrational -- this makes your arguments, which purport to show him to be rational, unsound by way of reductio.
Unless some unsoundness or other failure of rationality can be detected in their respective arguments, neither side in that debate is being racist by my lights. I don't have time to analyze their arguments in detail, but if I were going to try, I'd look at the statistical reasoning and the methodology of the respective studies.
As far as I'm concerned, generally speaking, it's not racist to attempt to learn the truth, even if the truth turns out to have a racial bias.
If I where to comb Stormfront to find someone that would give you, Crashing00, or BS a run for the money, would you claim they're not racist? (I hope we can agree such intelligent yet misguided people do exist somewhere)
No, of course you would not.
If rationality meant "able to beat Crashing00 or BS in a debate," or had anything remotely to do with that, then maybe this would be a relevant question, but since it's not...?
A well read racist shouldering the burden of proof is STILL a racist.
This is tautological. The question of whether a person is a racist cannot ever be engaged with in earnest if you predeclare them to be a racist. This seems to be the crux of what I see as your failure to grok this argument.
You don't get a free pass just because you're knowledgeable and articulate.
No kidding. That's what I've been saying the whole time. The "free pass" is not handed out based on the appearance of intelligence, articulacy, niceness, politeness, or any other kind of performance art. It's not a free pass for good rhetoricians. It has to do with the rationality of the arguments being proffered. The "free pass" is for people who are honestly attempting to figure out the truth.
So, again, I reject this definition of yours because it leads to nonsense.
It wasn't my definition that led to the nonsense -- it was your mental process operating incorrectly on it. Let's look at that first.
From a plethora of sources it seems evident that the demographic anomaly of blacks being disproportionately over-represented in our major sports is not a result of a unique biological predisposition to excel.
If Taylor's argument that black people are better off enslaved is rational, so be it, but I doubt it. That doesn't make Cliven Bundy's argument rational. His is clearly irrational by inspection. So that should completely end the controversy between you and billy about that particular issue.
The point I am trying to make is that if all that is required to not be racist is to shoulder the burden of proof, it's not a very selective requirement. Heck, I do it all the time, how bad could it be? (but, you probably disagree that I do)
I have full confidence that someone could shoulder the burden about "black people are better off enslaved." I am sure they could find polls and other evidence to back up that claim. I'm sure they could clarify each word in that sentence and show how it could be reflected in reality. I have full confidence someone could make a rational argument about it. But, I have full confidence someone could make a rational argument over just about anything.
Which part of that do you disagree with? All?
(Not that I would--myself--try to make that argument. For one, I stopped arguing for things I don't agree with a long time ago. For two, I'd feel pretty sleazy doing it. For three, I'd probably get the thread locked from all of the spam others would generate at me if I tried.)
Now, I would assert that the position "black people are better off enslaved" is a racist opinion regardless. Because I define "Racist" to be "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." So--above and beyond just shouldering the burden--even if someone proved it CORRECT that "black people are better off enslaved," I would still call it a racist assertion.
The question of whether a person is a racist cannot ever be engaged with in earnest if you predeclare them to be a racist. This seems to be the crux of what I see as your failure to grok this argument.
lol, I just finished reading that book too.
Anyway, us scientists test things based on reality. If someone tells you "funny" means "something wonderful," but you only see people laugh when something terrible happens, you need to further question the meaning of the word, as Valentine did. If you point your telescope at the sun, but get data that could have only come from the moon, you need to reevaluate your setup.
I need people like Bundy to calibrate my grokking of the word 'racist.'
That's pretty much what I meant to do in making this thread. I meant to use the example of Bundy to grok the meaning of 'racist.'
As far as I'm concerned, generally speaking, it's not racist to attempt to learn the truth, even if the truth turns out to have a racial bias.
And, that's where our definitions differ. The reason I'm leery about this definition is that everyone--in their own mind--is seeking the truth. Thus, no one would admit to being racist. However, I guess there are lots of labels like that.
Regardless, I do think I now have a good handle on the logic behind your definition, and I don't think I can disagree with it. There are lots of things no one would admit to being. So, I will likely hear people who are clearly racist saying "I'm not racist" more and more often.
I don't find the rest of this as important as what I said in the first half of this post. But, I also don't want to perpetuate misunderstandings. So, I will continue for that reason.
For heaven's sake, man, you don't have to read my mind. We both know what rational arguments are, or at least we should:
You are behaving as though this is a controversial matter, yet you have been posting and reading a debate forum for many years and on that forum there is, in fact, a minimum established standard for what constitutes a rational argument that both you and I are fully aware of. Obviously we both agree to that minimum standard or we wouldn't be posting here. So why on earth are you attempting to generate controversy here? There shouldn't be any, there needn't be any, and as far as I'm concerned, there isn't any.
You're being very unfair about this; I'm not alone in "generating controversy."
Now, I asked about "rational argument" because I thought I recalled from the last time we spoke on this subject that you felt that something "rational" was "logical." Thus, a "rational argument" in those terms could have meant "logical proof," which isn't something most people do with their opinions. Now, going back and revisiting that conversation from 3 years ago, I see I was mostly incorrect in that recollection: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/religion/451021-mere-christianity?page=3#c66
But, that is PERILOUSLY the reason I asked you to define it. I didn't want to make any incorrect assumptions about your current definition of the term colored by my memory of years-old interactions. Thus, I ASKED YOU what you meant. I think, given my uncertainty, that was the correct choice.
You seem to feel I was unjustified in asking for clarification about this term, I don't (I mean, it's clear--for example--billydaman has a different definition, which is why I think it's good to check with the person). Thus, this meta-argument was born about whether or not "rational argument" has a self-evident definition.
But, I'm glad to see you feel this argument isn't really contentious, because I don't really find it that contentious either. I only really perpetuated it because I'm sure that Mr. Bundy and others feel their argument is a "rational argument." Under your definition, mine, and--as you say--most people on the debate form, they're wrong. However, this discussion is--at least in part--about how Mr. Bundy and others think.
Okay, so now I've met my burden? That was a quick change of heart.
Of course you met it.
All I was TRYING to do was to find out how you defined it and get some clarification. You gave me your definition and that clarification, and I accepted it as such. There was no "change of heart." I asked you to do something, you did it, and I genuinely appreciated that you did. I resented the tone the information was given in, yes, but not the information itself.
I'm afraid you've lost me. A judgment that your arguments are inadequate doesn't force any judgment whatsoever against any other argument. It could be that billy's arguments are inadequate, he knows that, and he still thinks yours are inadequate. There's nothing inconsistent about that position.
It was meant as a consistent argument. It was also meant to get billydaman to think about his own position and performance a little. That is all I meant by it.
If rationality meant "able to beat Crashing00 or BS in a debate," or had anything remotely to do with that, then maybe this would be a relevant question, but since it's not...?
No, but I am sure there are people out there that can shoulder the burden about whether or not "black people are better off enslaved," even with you or BS trying to debunk them.
People throw the term around to loosely I feel. Just because someone makes a statement or does something does not make them racist or mean that the comment or action was racist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
An argument that stands up to scrutiny.
I disagree that you've shown him to be rational.
Learning to pick cotton is not a rational argument as to why people abort their children or go to jail.
This implies black people have only two options, picking cotton or government subsidy. We know this to be untrue.
Do I need to explain why this is wrong?
I think in most cases the numbers are irrelevant. Correlation does not imply causation. I think it comes down to a simple exercise in logic.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
...
Sometimes I'm flabbergasted by the things I read here. How does someone who has been posting on and reading a debate forum for at least five years not have at least a rough inkling of what constitutes a rational argument? It's got nothing to do with having access to every fact in the universe or some unimpeachable insight into ultimate truth. It has to do with things like argumentative structure, logical validity, soundness, and burdens of proof.
Mr. Bundy's argument can immediately be seen to be irrational. In fact, we can already judge it irrational by the time he utters his third sentence. He claims, on the basis of anecdotal evidence alone, that there are "always at least half a dozen people sitting on the porch" of a particular housing development in North Las Vegas. Really? Always? At least? Proof please? Undischarged burden.
Not that it would matter even if he did provide such proof, because he then goes on to reason from the specific to the general by attempting to induct his anecdotal observations of that single housing project up to the entire monolithic entity he calls "the Negro." That's a formal fallacy. (Not to mention his monolithization of a race, which is at the very least controversial, or, as I would argue, outright fallacious in itself.)
He then proceeds to assert a completely unargued-for connection between picking cotton of all things and criminal behavior and abortion. All of these are bare assertions and non sequiturs. Fallacy after fallacy. Then he equates slavery with freedom, which is a logical contradiction. Fallacy.
In fact his entire argument is nothing but a long string of tedious fallacies, bare assertions, anecdotal evidence, and non sequiturs. If someone were to copy and paste his words into a debate forum post here it wouldn't take anyone more than a second to identify the problems in the argument and demolish it -- despite the fact that none of us have access to all the ultimate truths about race. I truly do not understand how there is even a scintilla of controversy as to whether or not Cliven Bundy is making a rational argument here. He's not.
Rationality is not a performance art or a state of mind. It doesn't matter how nice you are or how much you think you're being rational. Ultimately it's a check against some observable criteria -- and while there may be some controversy in the most rarefied heights of epistemics on just what those criteria are, I assure you that Cliven Bundy doesn't meet any sane version of it.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Please remember, I debate primarily to understand the way other people think better. The structure of arguments--and the thoughts guiding them--are more interesting to me than the conclusions.
Honestly, I'm flabbergasted that you're flabbergasted. You say a rational argument is one that shoulders the burden. You told me that an irrational argument is necessary to be racist. So, when I ask you to shoulder the burdened and EXPLAIN what you mean by that, suddenly I get: "Sometimes I'm flabbergasted by the things I read here. How does someone who has been posting on and reading a debate forum for at least five years not have at least a rough inkling of what constitutes a rational argument?"
So, you're saying rational arguments are when someone shoulders the burden of proof, but when someone asks YOU to shoulder the burden of proof by way of clarification, your response is complete indignation? Like it's beneath you to do so?
Fair points all.
I would whole heartily agree that Bundy fits your criteria for "racist" because his arguments don't met your criteria for being rational arguments. My stating premise in this thread is that Bundy is an ignorant bigot. I'm not going back on either of those assertions.
So, I'm going to have to start reaching outside of Bundy and KKK members to show why I still disagree with your definition. If you could, stay with me, Crashing00, into the next section.
I've got billydaman telling me:
I shouldered burden of proof. I brought empirical data backing Bundy up, and brought reasons explaining why his argument was likely non-contradictory (which you showed to be untrue, Crashing00). Up until his last post, billydaman did neither of those things. So, if billydaman felt my argument for Bundy's rationality was inadequate, I can assume billydaman felt his own argument against Bundy's rationality is doubly so (at least until his last post).
Additionally, would you, Crashing00, have claimed billydaman (up until his last post) was being racist for condemning Bundy, but I wasn't being racist for defending Bundy because I was shouldering the burden of proof? No--Crashing00--of course you wouldn't. It's ridiculous for me to even suggest that. But why, if the burden matters?
Is no one being racist in this debate: http://www.debate.org/debates/Caucasians-are-inherently-more-intelligent-than-African-Americans/1/ since both are shouldering the burden? If I where to comb Stormfront to find someone that would give you, Crashing00, or BS a run for the money, would you claim they're not racist? (I hope we can agree such intelligent yet misguided people do exist somewhere)
No, of course you would not. A well read racist shouldering the burden of proof is STILL a racist. You don't get a free pass just because you're knowledgeable and articulate.
So, again, I reject this definition of yours because it leads to nonsense.
Aside
My statements about "being polite" were not made in response to the definition you put forth. They were mainly made before you joined the discussion and were about the "derogatory" definition others put forth. You were (one of?//the first?) ones who first started using "rational" as a criteria. Others on the thread integrated it into their own definition only after you mentioned it.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Although tedious, its rather easy to see the not so subtle pivots in pro's argument.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Anyway, the CliffsNotes version of my point is just because someone shoulders the burden of proof (i.e. makes a 'rational argument' as Crushing00 defines it) doesn't mean they're automatically exempt from being racist. That's why I put in bold: A well read racist shouldering the burden of proof is STILL a racist. That was the main crux of my argument.
Does that clear things up a bit for you, billydaman?
It's absurd. It seems to me you think of rational argument is only about showing empirical evidence or using big words but they must also be able to apply and demonstrate why that evidence is pertinent in a logical, sound way that will stand up to scrutiny.
I'll make it simple for you, name the only logical reason to measure racial superiority at an activity (A: its to find out racial superiority) then tell me why its rational to find out which race is inherently superior. No matter how much evidence, statistics or facts you produce nothing changes the irrationality of measuring racial superiority. This central idea has been the primary logic to destroy arguments such as privilege or any other fundamentally racist premise. There is no need to read the evidence, statistics or data.
You refute the entire premise of a debate centering around racial superiority due to the irrational nature of it. It is not sane to think the color of your skin has any bearing on your abilities or characteristics as a human being, other than the color of your skin. You are essentially arguing which color of the pie has the best inherent qualities..
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I CAN respond to Crushing00 because he gave me a clear definition I can work with, mainly 'an argument that shoulders the burden of proof,' <-THAT is what I'm responding to; not whatever you're going on about.
I can't really respond to you because you're using things like 'reason' and 'logic' interchangeably. I'm going to need you to clarify what you mean by those terms, as Crushing00 has done. I can't properly disagree with something ill-defined. I need to understand an argument before I can accurately explain why it's wrong.
But, I guess all of this is moot anyway: If you have no intention of reading evidence, statistics, or data, then there really isn't much of a point in me typing things in your direction, is there?
Makes me wounder why you'd be here at all.
Give me a rational reason to rank the inherent characteristics of a color, this is exactly what you do when you say black anything is better than white anything.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
IDK, it seems like there are a number of decision making processes for which knowing "racial superiority" for a given activity could be useful. If I have to pick a team of basketball players and all I have to go on is skin color it would be useful for me to know that people of one color tend to be best at the sport, yes?
Can you please tell us the inherent characteristics of the color black?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Of the very darkest color, owing to the absence of or complete absorption of light. Relevance?
So nothing in there about basketball? Am I right?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Again, relevance? Not sure how discussing the characteristics of the literal color is useful here. (when we know that color in the context of race can be linked to various traits)
You are selecting a team of basketball players solely based on the color of their skin. I bet I could build a better basketball team by looking at the shoes they are wearing. I disagree, I think the color of a persons skin is an indicator of nothing more than color of their skin.
Color of skin magically provides traits to people? This is not a sane argument.
Obviously, I'm pointing out the irrelevance of skin color when it comes to determining the basketball skill of a human being.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Straw man much?
Obviously the color of the skin isn't magically providing traits. But OTOH we do know that the same gene pool that provides that color also tends to produce other traits. Knowledge of those traits and how they correlate with race could conceivably be useful in MANY decision making processes, something you denied but I showed you with a very simple example.
Lets take another example: Say we are vaccinating for a disease and we know that people of race X are most susceptible to the disease. With limited quantities of the vaccine available we have to choose who gets the vaccine. We can ignore race and apply the vaccine randomly, or we can consider race and apply accordingly. The latter will have higher efficacy, yes?
It's not a straw man. The observance of racial disparity of people playing basketball on TV is not a valid indicator of skill for any random person. You are basically picking people based on color. Say you can only look and examine their skin color and I can look and examine their shoes. I would be willing to bet the results of my team will outshine yours. Another example. The best basketball players are often tall but this does not make all tall people better basketball players.
I still deny it. The observance of racial disparity of people playing basketball on TV is not a valid indicator of skill for any random person. You are basically picking people based on color.
I refute the premise. You only provide two options for the application. Random or by race. Maybe a simple test will produce the best candidates for the vacine. Your hypothetical leaves a lot to be desired. I do not accept a premise that holds absolutely that one race is more susceptible than another. You've designed your hypothetical in such a way it can only lead to one conclusion, when if allowed to take in other much more reliable variables and evidence (such as testing for the disease) the answer will possibly change.
Study after study has indicated geographical and culture conditions is more responsible for medical conditions than the color of skin. While you can attempt to use race to determine a characteristic, its unreliable, mostly because its just a color and too broad of a identifier to determine any random individuals characteristics.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
"Another example. The best basketball players are often tall but this does not make all tall people better basketball players."
This is a perfect example of your flawed logic. They don't ALL have to be better for it to be a useful trait in decision making. You can quibble over exactly how useful it is, but ultimately as long as it has some usefulness your earlier claim is false.
Similarly with your refutation of my premise, just think a little bit further. Sure, there might be even better indicators of who would be the best candidates. But the best approach would probably involve considering ALL useful factors, including race. And imagine treating a large poor population with limited funding and vaccine supplies (i.e. much aid work in 3rd world situations). It is entirely possible that you won't be able to do much screening/testing to pick best candidates (and testing for the disease itself wouldn't make much sense given that we are talking about a preventative measure).
And why wouldn't you accept a premise that involves one race being more susceptible to a disease than another? Do you not accept that differences in skin color are also typically linked with numerous other biological differences? I mean it isn't like skin color is the only difference between people of different races. Even from the exterior you can see physiological trends that differ between races. And that holds true when you look at the genetics.
You keep saying "its just a color" but in reality that isn't true. That skin color carries SO much more information than that, because we know that so many other things tend to be linked to it. On a micro scale you are mostly right, skin color alone won't tell you much about an individual in terms of absolute truths. But once you expand your view, and start thinking in probabilistic terms, that is no longer the case. At that level all of the traits/characteristics known to be linked to a given race can be useful.
No, I said it was irrational. I've never speak in absolutes, or at least try not. I think observing skin color is useful in determing race, not basketball skills.
Its irrational to use skin color to determine who plays basketball better. Of all the measurables you can use to determine skill, race is one of the most arbitary metrics. Race is not a factor when professional sports teams select a player in the draft and they are known to measure everything about an athlete.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Sounds pretty absolute. How did you expect that sentiment to be received? And more importantly, why would you possibly think that was true? Do you not understand that people with the genes that provide a given skin color also tend to share numerous other traits? Or do you actually deny that?
For heaven's sake, man, you don't have to read my mind. We both know what rational arguments are, or at least we should:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/argument.html
http://www.iep.utm.edu/argument/
You are behaving as though this is a controversial matter, yet you have been posting and reading a debate forum for many years and on that forum there is, in fact, a minimum established standard for what constitutes a rational argument that both you and I are fully aware of. Obviously we both agree to that minimum standard or we wouldn't be posting here. So why on earth are you attempting to generate controversy here? There shouldn't be any, there needn't be any, and as far as I'm concerned, there isn't any.
What on earth are you talking about? You asked for a demonstration of why Cliven Bundy's argument is irrational. I provided that demonstration by analyzing his argument and pointing out fallacies, invalidities, and undischarged burdens. Of course there's every possibility that I made a mistake somewhere, in which case I invite you to specifically identify it -- but for you to insinuate that I didn't engage with my burden is just false.
Okay, so now I've met my burden? That was a quick change of heart.
Nor should you, because he is. The question before my mind was never one of defending Cliven Bundy. Just about every definition under consideration here makes him into a racist.
I don't understand the problem. Billydaman was quite right to be unconvinced by your argument that Bundy's argument was rational, because it was clearly wrong. Bravo for collecting empirical data or whatever, but no amount of work that you do could ever make Cliven Bundy's argument, which must be considered on its own merits, rational.
Now, you may have, in the course of collecting your own empirical data, have come up with your own rational argument for why black people were better off enslaved. That would be Taylor's rational argument for black slavery, not Cliven Bundy's.
If Taylor's argument that black people are better off enslaved is rational, so be it, but I doubt it. That doesn't make Cliven Bundy's argument rational. His is clearly irrational by inspection. So that should completely end the controversy between you and billy about that particular issue.
I'm afraid you've lost me. A judgment that your arguments are inadequate doesn't force any judgment whatsoever against any other argument. It could be that billy's arguments are inadequate, he knows that, and he still thinks yours are inadequate. There's nothing inconsistent about that position.
...
What are you talking about?
First of all, neither of you are being racist concerning Bundy, because your judgments concerning Bundy are not based on race. So that's a non-starter from the beginning.
Second of all, you continue to have bizarre ideas about what constitutes rational argumentation. Failing to shoulder a burden of proof is one reason an argument can fail to be rational. There are others. For instance, soundness and validity are important requirements of a rational argument.
Third of all, since neither of you are being racist, it seems that the question really boils down to "amongst Taylor and billydaman, who is making rational arguments?" The best judgment I can render at this time is "neither of them." You have just admitted that my argument shows Bundy to be irrational -- this makes your arguments, which purport to show him to be rational, unsound by way of reductio.
Unless some unsoundness or other failure of rationality can be detected in their respective arguments, neither side in that debate is being racist by my lights. I don't have time to analyze their arguments in detail, but if I were going to try, I'd look at the statistical reasoning and the methodology of the respective studies.
As far as I'm concerned, generally speaking, it's not racist to attempt to learn the truth, even if the truth turns out to have a racial bias.
If rationality meant "able to beat Crashing00 or BS in a debate," or had anything remotely to do with that, then maybe this would be a relevant question, but since it's not...?
This is tautological. The question of whether a person is a racist cannot ever be engaged with in earnest if you predeclare them to be a racist. This seems to be the crux of what I see as your failure to grok this argument.
No kidding. That's what I've been saying the whole time. The "free pass" is not handed out based on the appearance of intelligence, articulacy, niceness, politeness, or any other kind of performance art. It's not a free pass for good rhetoricians. It has to do with the rationality of the arguments being proffered. The "free pass" is for people who are honestly attempting to figure out the truth.
It wasn't my definition that led to the nonsense -- it was your mental process operating incorrectly on it. Let's look at that first.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
http://www.science.smith.edu/exer_sci/ESS200/Raceh/Raceh.htm
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I have full confidence that someone could shoulder the burden about "black people are better off enslaved." I am sure they could find polls and other evidence to back up that claim. I'm sure they could clarify each word in that sentence and show how it could be reflected in reality. I have full confidence someone could make a rational argument about it. But, I have full confidence someone could make a rational argument over just about anything.
Which part of that do you disagree with? All?
(Not that I would--myself--try to make that argument. For one, I stopped arguing for things I don't agree with a long time ago. For two, I'd feel pretty sleazy doing it. For three, I'd probably get the thread locked from all of the spam others would generate at me if I tried.)
Now, I would assert that the position "black people are better off enslaved" is a racist opinion regardless. Because I define "Racist" to be "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." So--above and beyond just shouldering the burden--even if someone proved it CORRECT that "black people are better off enslaved," I would still call it a racist assertion.
lol, I just finished reading that book too.
Anyway, us scientists test things based on reality. If someone tells you "funny" means "something wonderful," but you only see people laugh when something terrible happens, you need to further question the meaning of the word, as Valentine did. If you point your telescope at the sun, but get data that could have only come from the moon, you need to reevaluate your setup.
I need people like Bundy to calibrate my grokking of the word 'racist.'
That's pretty much what I meant to do in making this thread. I meant to use the example of Bundy to grok the meaning of 'racist.'
And, that's where our definitions differ. The reason I'm leery about this definition is that everyone--in their own mind--is seeking the truth. Thus, no one would admit to being racist. However, I guess there are lots of labels like that.
Regardless, I do think I now have a good handle on the logic behind your definition, and I don't think I can disagree with it. There are lots of things no one would admit to being. So, I will likely hear people who are clearly racist saying "I'm not racist" more and more often.
I don't find the rest of this as important as what I said in the first half of this post. But, I also don't want to perpetuate misunderstandings. So, I will continue for that reason.
You're being very unfair about this; I'm not alone in "generating controversy."
Now, I asked about "rational argument" because I thought I recalled from the last time we spoke on this subject that you felt that something "rational" was "logical." Thus, a "rational argument" in those terms could have meant "logical proof," which isn't something most people do with their opinions. Now, going back and revisiting that conversation from 3 years ago, I see I was mostly incorrect in that recollection:
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/religion/451021-mere-christianity?page=3#c66
But, that is PERILOUSLY the reason I asked you to define it. I didn't want to make any incorrect assumptions about your current definition of the term colored by my memory of years-old interactions. Thus, I ASKED YOU what you meant. I think, given my uncertainty, that was the correct choice.
You seem to feel I was unjustified in asking for clarification about this term, I don't (I mean, it's clear--for example--billydaman has a different definition, which is why I think it's good to check with the person). Thus, this meta-argument was born about whether or not "rational argument" has a self-evident definition.
But, I'm glad to see you feel this argument isn't really contentious, because I don't really find it that contentious either. I only really perpetuated it because I'm sure that Mr. Bundy and others feel their argument is a "rational argument." Under your definition, mine, and--as you say--most people on the debate form, they're wrong. However, this discussion is--at least in part--about how Mr. Bundy and others think.
Of course you met it.
All I was TRYING to do was to find out how you defined it and get some clarification. You gave me your definition and that clarification, and I accepted it as such. There was no "change of heart." I asked you to do something, you did it, and I genuinely appreciated that you did. I resented the tone the information was given in, yes, but not the information itself.
It was meant as a consistent argument. It was also meant to get billydaman to think about his own position and performance a little. That is all I meant by it.
No, but I am sure there are people out there that can shoulder the burden about whether or not "black people are better off enslaved," even with you or BS trying to debunk them.
It was meant as such. I'll often try to phrase my points in the form of a tautology; I thought you knew that about me.
I wasn't talking solely talking about superficial appearance, but real substance as well. I guess I should have been more clear in conveying that?