I found this and I think it explains my previous post perfectly:
Racism is volitional error of morality and intellectual integrity, and acts of racism (both expression of racist ideas or racist conduct) can be detected and identified by empirical means to the extent the true motivations are known (known—not perceived or assumed). The conduct or expression itself is either racist or not. Whether I perceive your actions as racist is of no consequence to the truth and fact of whether or not your actions are racist.
Acts and expression of racism will always be binary. If a person of color did not get the job, it was either the result of racism or it wasn’t. If I say something, it is either an expression of racism or it is not.
Similarly, beliefs either fit the definition of racism or they don’t. I refer to the standard, conventional definition—some newer definitions of racism are ridiculous and border on the mystical.
Racism can only exist on a spectrum when the thinking about racism is vague, convoluted, or intellectually dishonest.
That's true and that's the point I've been making throughout this conversation. I can't believe that anyone can disagree with that without doing so disingenuously.
It's why it has not been answered or acknowledged. The argument from the other side is so wrapped up in the hatred of Trump, they've lost all perspective it seems. No one can claim I'm in the bag for Trump, I have serious contempt for the man.
Simply saying its racist does not work anymore. You can blame SJWism for that.
Yes or no, a persons nationality impacts thier decision making and attachment to issues?
Yes. But it is racist to assume that just because a person has that nationality, that will do more than just play some little role in their worldview but rather makes them incapable of fairly reviewing certain cases.
We've already all agreed that everyone's experiences differently shape their views.
Hmmm... Yes, I can see all the ignoring of this point from opposing positions.
Oh wait, people are agreeing with it.
They have distorted or contorted the question to the point they are answering a different question, unasked question.
I AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT ("a persons nationality impacts their decision making and attachment to issues"/"A persons ethnicity, nationality, or heritage can influence their thinking on a range of topics") ENTIRELY.
Is that enough for you?
You said "just because", which ignores that Trump's immigration stance may cause a Mexican to hold a grudge, at least in part due to the fact they are Mexican.
No it doesn't. Trump's accusation is that the judge holds certain views because he is Mexican. i.e. The casual factor is being Mexican. The supposed bias is a result of dislike of the immigration policy, no? So it's all dependent on the Mexican part, everything else is one big result.
Induldge me in one more answer:
Is it possible a judge can be biased toward Trump in a seperate unrelated legal proceeding due to no other reasons than the judges Mexican heritage and Trump's inflamatory and repeated stance on illegal Mexicans?
Racist comments can never be true, in any circumstance. There is a possibility Trump is right about the judge being biased.
Yes. What you do not understand is, its impossible for a judge not to have some type of marginal conflict of interest for all kinds of reasons, including heritage, race, etc. Merely stating this irrelevant conflict is not racist.
But Trump is not suggesting this is an irrelevant or marginal conflict of interest. He said that the judge should recuse himself because of it. The term he used was "absolute" conflict of interest.
Well he thinks it is relevant. That does not make his statement racist, he just puts more wieght into the conflict than other people.
Ive answered two of your qeustions, answer mine or its clear stonewalling.As it is the crux of my entire argument.
Yes. What you do not understand is, its impossible for a judge not to have some type of marginal conflict of interest for all kinds of reasons, including heritage, race, etc. Merely stating this irrelevant conflict is not racist.
Why was it a relevant conflict of interest on page 177, but an irrelevant conflict of interest on page 178?
Because it does not matter if its a relevant or irrlevant conflict of interest
Some people may think it's irrelevant and some people may think its a relevant conflict of interest. Whether or not it's a relevant or not has no bearing on whether it's racist.
It takes at least two things to create a conflict of interest. Trump immigration policy and the judges ethincity. The judge is the one that has the conflict.
You stated if he was talking about this one judge....besides you are not responding to my arguement and essentially ignoring it.
If the things that determine the conflict of interest are Trump's policies and the judge's ethnicity, then any Mexican judge would also have the same conflict of interest when judging cases involving Trump. Therefore, Trump's complaint is not limited to this one judge - it's an attack on the ability of any judge of Mexican heritage to preside over cases in which Trump is involved.
Yes. What you do not understand is, its impossible for a judge not to have some type of marginal conflict of interest for all kinds of reasons, including heritage, race, etc. Merely stating this irrelevant conflict is not racist.
Now answer my true or false question with a single word.
No, I'm not playing that game with you again. We've been over it many times. Defend your statement that the purported conflict of interest is not the heritage, given that Trump said exactly the opposite.
It takes at least two things to create a conflict of interest. Trump immigration policy and the judges ethincity. The judge is the one that has the conflict because he shares an interest in both.
You stated if he was talking about this one judge....besides you are not responding to my arguement and essentially ignoring it.
You are eqiuvocating. The judge(s) has the purported conlfict of interst not the heritage.
In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage”
Now answer my true or false question with a single word. You are just repeating yourself without acknowledging the fact that statement Trump made can be true, and if it can be true, then it cant be racist.
If Trump is only talking about this one judge and is only complaining about this one judge's perceived unfair rulings, why did he say that the judge has an "inherent conflict of interest" because of his heritage? A conflict of interest exists regardless of what rulings a judge makes - it exists before any rulings are even made. If this judge has a conflict of interest, then so would every other judge with Mexican heritage, regardless of their actual feelings about Trump.
You are eqiuvocating. The judge(s) has the purported conlfict of interst not the heritage.
It is a conlict if interest, just not a relevant one, nor does it nessicairly indicate bias.
True or false, a judges Mexican heritage can influence his opinion on Trump due to Trumps postion on immigration and Mexican immigrants?
The answer is true.
I think you all need to answer this qeustion with either true or false and stop eqiuvocating. Lay your cards on the table and answer. If you answer true, you then have to conclude it is at least possible Trumps claim has some validity.
If the answer is true, what Trump said is not racist. A racist idea can never be true.
People are not denying that upbringing can shape world views but to cite someones race or cultural heritage as reason why they cannot perform their duties is bigotry plain and simple (it also implies that all people from a specific heritage think the same way which is additionally ignorant.) I am surprised how far some people are willing to bend over backwards to defend Trump on this.
Trump is ONLY talking about the judge. All of the people who who think he is talking about all Mexicans are erroneously conflating the judge with all Mexicans. That is the primary logical contortion that is occurring. No one has denied or refuted the truth in what I say. I do not have to bend over backwards with the truth.
If a persons Mexican heritage can play a role in what a Mexican thinks of Trump, then it cant be racist for Trump to bring up the judges heritage when discussing his partiality, in light of perceived unfavorable rulings and Trumps comments on Mexican immigration.
This is a true statement. He is not talking about all Mexicans, he is talking about the judge. You people think he is saying all Mexicans are biased for no reason other than they are Mexican, and he has not said that.
A persons ethnicity, nationality, or heritage can influence thier thinking on a range of topics?
The answer is True.
That's true and that's the point I've been making throughout this conversation. I can't believe that anyone can disagree with that without doing so disingenuously.
It's why it has not been answered or acknowledged. The argument from the other side is so wrapped up in the hatred of Trump, they've lost all perspective it seems. No one can claim I'm in the bag for Trump, I have serious contempt for the man.
Simply saying its racist does not work anymore. You can blame SJWism for that.
Yes or no, a persons nationality impacts thier decision making and attachment to issues?
Yes. But it is racist to assume that just because a person has that nationality, that will do more than just play some little role in their worldview but rather makes them incapable of fairly reviewing certain cases.
We've already all agreed that everyone's experiences differently shape their views.
Hmmm... Yes, I can see all the ignoring of this point from opposing positions.
Oh wait, people are agreeing with it.
They have distorted or contorted the question to the point they are answering a different question, unasked question.
Tiax is talking about experiences. You said "just because", which ignores that Trump's immigration stance may cause a Mexican to hold a grudge, at least in part due to the fact they are Mexican. The argument you are making is, and always will be a straw man since Trump has listed other reasons a Mexican may hold a grudge. You are ignoring that Mexicans heritage can play a role in how Mexicans respond to Trump due to his immigration stance.
A persons ethnicity, nationality, or heritage can influence thier thinking on a range of topics?
The answer is True.
That's true and that's the point I've been making throughout this conversation. I can't believe that anyone can disagree with that without doing so disingenuously.
It's why it has not been answered or acknowledged. The argument from the other side is so wrapped up in the hatred of Trump, they've lost all perspective it seems. No one can claim I'm in the bag for Trump, I have serious contempt for the man.
He's saying that the judge is being unfair in his rulings because of his Mexican heritage.
I honestly have no idea how you cant understand the perceived unfair rulings caused Trump to consider whether or not the judges heritage was playing a role in his handling of the case, in light of Trumps immigration policy and previous inflammatory comments he's made about Mexican immigrants. He obviously thinks it is. The Mexican heritage is not what caused Trump to think he was being treated unfairly, the perceived unfair rulings did. He literally says that if he felt he was getting fair rulings, he would not call in question the judges ethnicity. He implicitly acknowledges he could accept a Mexicans judges rulings, if he felt they were fair. Nothing I'm saying is incorrect or false or a manipulation. Almost everything you've argued is.
Something is either true, false or unknown. Something is either racist or not.
Induldge me in one more answer:
Is it possible a judge can be biased toward Trump in a seperate unrelated legal proceeding due to no other reasons than the judges Mexican heritage and Trump's inflamatory and repeated stance on illegal Mexicans?
Racist comments can never be true, in any circumstance. There is a possibility Trump is right about the judge being biased.
Well he thinks it is relevant. That does not make his statement racist, he just puts more wieght into the conflict than other people.
Ive answered two of your qeustions, answer mine or its clear stonewalling.As it is the crux of my entire argument.
Because it does not matter if its a relevant or irrlevant conflict of interest
Some people may think it's irrelevant and some people may think its a relevant conflict of interest. Whether or not it's a relevant or not has no bearing on whether it's racist.
Yes. What you do not understand is, its impossible for a judge not to have some type of marginal conflict of interest for all kinds of reasons, including heritage, race, etc. Merely stating this irrelevant conflict is not racist.
It takes at least two things to create a conflict of interest. Trump immigration policy and the judges ethincity. The judge is the one that has the conflict because he shares an interest in both.
You stated if he was talking about this one judge....besides you are not responding to my arguement and essentially ignoring it.
Now answer my true or false question with a single word. You are just repeating yourself without acknowledging the fact that statement Trump made can be true, and if it can be true, then it cant be racist.
You are eqiuvocating. The judge(s) has the purported conlfict of interst not the heritage.
It is a conlict if interest, just not a relevant one, nor does it nessicairly indicate bias.
The answer is true.
I think you all need to answer this qeustion with either true or false and stop eqiuvocating. Lay your cards on the table and answer. If you answer true, you then have to conclude it is at least possible Trumps claim has some validity.
If the answer is true, what Trump said is not racist. A racist idea can never be true.
Trump is ONLY talking about the judge. All of the people who who think he is talking about all Mexicans are erroneously conflating the judge with all Mexicans. That is the primary logical contortion that is occurring. No one has denied or refuted the truth in what I say. I do not have to bend over backwards with the truth.
This is a true statement. He is not talking about all Mexicans, he is talking about the judge. You people think he is saying all Mexicans are biased for no reason other than they are Mexican, and he has not said that.
They have distorted or contorted the question to the point they are answering a different question, unasked question.
Tiax is talking about experiences. You said "just because", which ignores that Trump's immigration stance may cause a Mexican to hold a grudge, at least in part due to the fact they are Mexican. The argument you are making is, and always will be a straw man since Trump has listed other reasons a Mexican may hold a grudge. You are ignoring that Mexicans heritage can play a role in how Mexicans respond to Trump due to his immigration stance.
It's why it has not been answered or acknowledged. The argument from the other side is so wrapped up in the hatred of Trump, they've lost all perspective it seems. No one can claim I'm in the bag for Trump, I have serious contempt for the man.
I honestly have no idea how you cant understand the perceived unfair rulings caused Trump to consider whether or not the judges heritage was playing a role in his handling of the case, in light of Trumps immigration policy and previous inflammatory comments he's made about Mexican immigrants. He obviously thinks it is. The Mexican heritage is not what caused Trump to think he was being treated unfairly, the perceived unfair rulings did. He literally says that if he felt he was getting fair rulings, he would not call in question the judges ethnicity. He implicitly acknowledges he could accept a Mexicans judges rulings, if he felt they were fair. Nothing I'm saying is incorrect or false or a manipulation. Almost everything you've argued is.