02-10-2022, 07:37 PM
(02-10-2022, 07:17 PM)Dill Wrote: What you are calling an "argument" was a question, "seriously."
So your definition would not work with that real life example. Correct.
it actually does, as explained below.
Quote:If it has to depend on whether denial is "believable," then other, unstated and untestable criteria are in play, making the actual determination.
Yes, much like anything to do with knowing what is in someone's head and heart it is open to interpretation. However, that wasn't your original position. Moving the goal posts now, are we?
Quote:So I am not going to "figure out" your definition by myself, if you yoursself cannot actually adapt it to real life cases, or even fully articulate the criteria you are using.
I literally did exactly that with Joe Rogan. Do try and keep up.
Quote:Until you figure that out, your definition won't apply to many such examples. Your definition looks increasingly like a private one, protected from the challenges faced by any definition facing policy and a legal application.
I did figure it out, as stated above. I can't help that you're being deliberately ignorant because you know you're wrong.
Quote:Here is another real life example, also conjured from actual news sources. They are very common.
Washington (CNN)A Republican candidate for Kentucky's state legislature posted racist images of President Barack Obama and his family -- and defended those images by saying "Facebook's entertaining."
Dan Johnson, the bishop of Heart of Fire Church in Louisville, posted an edited image of the President and first lady Michelle Obama with ape-like features. He also labeled a photo of a chimpanzee a baby picture of Obama.
"It wasn't meant to be racist. I can tell you that. My history's good there. I can see how people would be offended in that. I wasn't trying to offend anybody, but, I think Facebook's entertaining," Johnson told WDRB, the Louisville TV station that found the images and confronted him with them.
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/02/politics/kentucky-republican-facebook-posts/
They sure are common, one need only go on Twitter to see examples of this regarding every ethnicity. Thankfully, my refutation of your point isn't predicated on believing anyone who denies racist intent. You specifically stated it is possible to be a racist without knowing. I completely disagree. As you can't argue with my actual point you, typically, try to obfuscate and twist the point being made, trying to make it about something that it wasn't and isn't.
I'll reiterate since you're clearly having trouble. If you make a racist remark, or commit a racist action, without the intent to be racist then you are not a racist, you're a person who made a mistake. If you are knowingly a racist, and made those statements, or committed those actions because of that, you are a racist. As far as what's in the heart and mind of a person, or whether you believe them when they deny racist intent, that's in the eye of the beholder, it's subject to your interpretation. You, being you, will believe the people who hold the same opinions as you and view those who don't as liars. However, because Dill thinks it's true doesn't automatically make it so. This is not complicated, so your obvious confusion is puzzling.
