Kanye West the Token Negro

[Sparko]

No, not nonsense. It's obvious to intelligent people.

It was a hit piece written by a liberal interviewing a liberal author with an axe to grind and a book to sell and no evidence.

nonsense.

[One Bad Pig]

Well, you can be sure, OBP, that I'm not dumb enough to go a changin to a conservative/republican.

Swell.

[Charles]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post583215

and then:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post583666

the fact that you haven't addressed his documented arguments means you are unwilling to discuss the issue raised in the OP.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: sparko

Charles,

Stay out of this thread. Your continual nannying and derailing and sniping from the sidelines will no longer be tolerated on our site. Any such posts are being moved to a derail thread we set up for you, known appropriately as "Chuck's Car" located here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...arious-threads

In addition you will start getting points for repeated violations and could be matrixed (temporary ban). Several matrixes will result in a perma ban.

If you have a problem with this decision or moderation, do NOT bring it up in this thread, take it to your derail thread or contact me via PM.

Sparko

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[rogue06]

00000000000000ar1aaa2hxw.jpg





00000000000000ar1aaa2hx.jpg

[Tassman]

Maybe since all that was just the vile the left vented toward only 3 blacks who had the audacity to leave the liberal plantation I should add a couple of other examples

I guess I could include General Colin Powell. Even though he became a Republican he's less a conservative and more of a maverick than the late John McCain ever dreamed of being that didn't stop liberals from savaging him^[1] but I think I'd rather pick someone much more recent, folks the left have only had a couple years to demonize.

Let's start with the person mentioned in the OP: Kanye West.

When he called George W. Bush a racist, saying that he "doesn't care about black people" during a live TV broadcast of "A Concert for Hurricane Relief," he was a darling of the left, much lauded for "speaking truth to power." But boy how that has changed since he started expressing admiration for Trump.

On CNN Tonight, anchor Don Lemon implied that his pro-Trump tweets ought to be seen as evidence that West does "not "care about black people."

Apparently The Root, a website which bills itself as providing "thought-provoking commentary and news from a variety of black perspectives," pretty much made it clear that there is only one "black perspective" and like CNN's Lemon has proclaimed

[ATTACH=CONFIG]32227[/ATTACH]

Washington PostSlate^[2]New York Times went after West insinuating that the bond between him and Trump (which apparently goes back several years) is a sign that his mental health is now up for debate^[3][4]Guardians of the GalaxyThe View

[ATTACH=CONFIG]32228[/ATTACH]

New York Times Op-Ed as a "token." Similarly NAACP President Benjamin Jealous attacked Scott shortly after he became a Senator as a "token" and declaring that Scott knows nothing about and is opposed to civil rights which he backed up by simply saying that Scott is a conservative Republican which is now tantamount to opposing "civil rights" as defined by liberals these days.

When he announced that he'd support Jeff Sessions for Attorney General Scott was labeled "a disgrace to the black race" called "Uncle Tom Scott," "a house negro like the one in Jango" and "a big Uncle Tom piece of fertilizer" (Scott actually read some of the comments on the Senate floor noting he excluded all the ones where he was called the n-word).

Andy Ostroy, a Political and Pop Culture Analyst at Huffington Post, attacked Scott calling him nothing more than a "black ... manipulated prop" at a ceremony celebrating the passage of the Republican tax relief bill ignoring the fact he was there due to being instrumental in writing the bill and a key player in getting it passed in the Senate.


There ya go. A whole lot more examples of how the left treats blacks if they don't conform to how they proclaim that blacks are permitted to think and act.












1. for instance, aside from being called a "spearchucker" by the Cleveland Plain Dealer's Metro columnist Sam Fullwood, the singer Harry Belafonte, the "King of Calypso," infamously alluded to Colin Powell as being a "house nigger" which blacks like the celebrated author Walter Mosley. applauded.

2. His mother-in-law Kris Jenner, a hard-core Hillary supporter, made a big fuss over wanting to make sure that everyone knows that West lives in a house worth $60 million, not $20 million like he had said -- as if that matters.

3. There are many actions that one could point to in West's past which might lead one to wonder about him but they picked his friendship with Trump

4. In a tweet Kim Kardashian wrote:


And


Seems like in the second one that she had the New York Times specifically in mind.

A Gish Gallop. So funny.

[rogue06]

Seems that Tass is still incapable of addressing the mountain of evidence that demonstrates the racism inherent among those on the left ready to spill out at a moment's notice the instant a black person behaves in the manner that they have proscribed.

[rogue06]

A Gish Gallop. So funny.

I offered just 5 examples (6 if you count the brief mention of Colin Powell) and the evidence supporting each example. Sorry if that is too much.

[Cow Poke]

I offered just 5 examples (6 if you count the brief mention of Colin Powell) and the evidence supporting each example. Sorry if that is too much.

I think he's unaccustomed to dealing with fact thingies. He much prefers drama.

[One Bad Pig]

A Gish Gallop. So funny.

You realize that a so-called "Gish Gallop" is only useful in live debates where there is limited time to respond, yes? Here you have all the time your lil heart desires to offer rebuttals. Is that beyond your capabilities?

[rogue06]

You realize that a so-called "Gish Gallop" is only useful in live debates where there is limited time to respond, yes? Here you have all the time your lil heart desires to offer rebuttals. Is that beyond your capabilities?

When you're desperate for excuses any piece of straw that floats by tends to look like a life raft.

[Mountain Man]

You realize that a so-called "Gish Gallop" is only useful in live debates where there is limited time to respond, yes? Here you have all the time your lil heart desires to offer rebuttals. Is that beyond your capabilities?

I'm not certain the "Gish Gallop" is even a legitimate logical fallacy in the first place since I've seen the term almost always used as a hand wave any time someone presents a large body of facts and research to support their argument.

[rogue06]

I'm not certain the "Gish Gallop" is even a legitimate logical fallacy in the first place since I've seen the term almost always used as a hand wave any time someone presents a large body of facts and research to support their argument.

It's when you dump dozens upon dozens of often unrelated "factoids" (probably better to call them claims) out there during an oral debate knowing full well that even if your opponent devoted his entire time addressing them he could not possibly cover them all leaving the impression he wasn't able to refute those not addressed. It is almost universally considered a disreputable tactic.

As the singular naughty swine noted there is no time limit in written debates so it is not relevant here but even more importantly I listed only 5 examples and then proceeded to provide the supporting evidence for those examples. Not even close to the same thing. Tass is merely seeking excuse to ignore just how much naked racism the left openly displays whenever a black person doesn't act the way they tell him to.

[Leonhard]

I think what John Martin did in his geocentrism threads is the closest I've gotten to a gish gallop in text form. He'd start by making twenty posts, which I responded to one by one. Then immediately after my responses he'd dump another huge load, so as to give the impression that I had only responded to a small part of it. Then the mods forced him to at least interact with the posts, so he'd respond to one post, then post four more new objects, etc...

If any debate on tweb was a Gish Gallop then that was clearly an instance of it.

But I agree with Rogue06, the key element is time to respond being the limiting factor. I'm not sure what I'd call an opponent that just offers up a wall of a bad evidence, so as to give the indication of a strong case... that's something else. I've sometimes heard of the term 'the four foot stack', in reference to UFO cases, which is the stack of the best UFO contact cases presented by ufo researchers who think there's evidence of alien/demonic visits. But I'd never call that Gish Gallopping.

The debates with the infamous Duane Gish were a sight to behold, mostly because he stayed to the exact same script, no matter what his opponents responded. There was at least one example of someone defending evolutionary biology who had prepared a counter script, with an answer and slide for each and everyone of Duane Gish's points. Relying on the fact that Gish always repeated himself. And Gish... just continued his gallop, never interacting with his opponent in any way.

Sigh... the glory days of the creationist crowd trying to convince everyone that what they were doing was science and could be taught in the public classrooms.

I miss those howlers. I much prefer them to the alt-right stuff we have today.

[rogue06]

I think what John Martin did in his geocentrism threads is the closest I've gotten to a gish gallop in text form. He'd start by making twenty posts, which I responded to one by one. Then immediately after my responses he'd dump another huge load, so as to give the impression that I had only responded to a small part of it. Then the mods forced him to at least interact with the posts, so he'd respond to one post, then post four more new objects, etc...

If any debate on tweb was a Gish Gallop then that was clearly an instance of it.

But I agree with Rogue06, the key element is time to respond being the limiting factor. I'm not sure what I'd call an opponent that just offers up a wall of a bad evidence, so as to give the indication of a strong case... that's something else. I've sometimes heard of the term 'the four foot stack', in reference to UFO cases, which is the stack of the best UFO contact cases presented by ufo researchers who think there's evidence of alien/demonic visits. But I'd never call that Gish Gallopping.

The debates with the infamous Duane Gish were a sight to behold, mostly because he stayed to the exact same script, no matter what his opponents responded. There was at least one example of someone defending evolutionary biology who had prepared a counter script, with an answer and slide for each and everyone of Duane Gish's points. Relying on the fact that Gish always repeated himself. And Gish... just continued his gallop, never interacting with his opponent in any way.

Sigh... the glory days of the creationist crowd trying to convince everyone that what they were doing was science and could be taught in the public classrooms.

I miss those howlers. I much prefer them to the alt-right stuff we have today.

Gish was notorious for getting cornered and being forced to admit something he said was completely wrong but then turning around in his next debate and repeating the thing he had just concede was erroneous.

I posted something about this on another board a few years ago:

Donald Prothero, in his "Evolution: What The Fossils Say and Why It Matters" (highly recommended for those interested in transitional fossils) recounts his experience debating Gish and his habit of conceding a point in one place then immediately repeating what he had acknowledged was wrong during his next debate. As he puts it on pages 47-48:

Gish is particularly dishonest in this regard. If he is beaten in a debate in one city and forced to admit that an argument is not true, he will still use the same invalid argument the next night in front of a different audience, since they didn't see him recant the argument the previous night.

He goes on to ask "How honest or truthful can a debater be if he cynically uses an argument he knows has been proven wrong on the next unsuspecting audience?" Good question.

Karl Fezer of Concord College who debated Gish in 1992 made a similar observation:

"An author concerned about getting his facts right would certainly, when accused of error by a recognized authority, seek out the relevant evidence. Yet Gish never asked Brace to cite his sources... Other scientists have also tried to straighten out Gish. There is little evidence that Gish modifies what he says to take this criticism into account. Appearance is everything. Truth seems not a high priority."

For instance, Gish continued to claim in debates that there are no fossil precursors to Triceratops despite being shown several obvious examples such as Monoclonius and Protoceratops -- the latter of which has been pretty well-known since the 1920s. He initially claimed that these dinosaurs occurred too close together in time for one to be ancestral to another, but in the next debate after Gish offered this excuse Kenneth Miller showed him multiple scientific sources that make it clear that there was something like 15 million years between them. Gish ignored it and continued claiming that Triceratops appears "suddenly in the fossil record, with no transitional forms."

Another instance of Gish admitting that one of his claims was wrong yet continuing to assert it as being true was when Drs. William Thwaites and Frank Awbrey of San Diego State University invited Gish to debate his claim publicly that the hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone in Bombardier Beetles spontaneously explode unless an inhibitor is added to prevent the explosion in the Spring of 1978.

They mixed hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone solutions together. There was no explosion; the mixture slowly turned brown as they oxidized. Gish then claimed that he had mistranslated the original German reference mistaking the German word for "unstable" for "explosive." Yet in spite of that he was still reciting the false story about this mixture spontaneously exploding in a debate with Dr. John W. Patterson at Graceland College, in Iowa in January 17, 1980.

This false claim that these chemicals explode is still being pushed on the AnswersinGenesis website: The Amazing Bombardier Beetle

Further, since 1981 Gish has claimed in debates that Lord Solly Zuckerman had examined the Australopithecus afarensis known as "Lucy" and concluded that she couldn't have walked upright. The problem is he never saw "Lucy" and when challenged on this in Ontario by Jay Ingram back in 1982 he got upset and complained that he wasn't responsible for people misinterpreting his remarks. But he continued making the false claim. Nine years later in a debate with biologist Fred Parrish, he even went from implying to outright declaring that Zuckerman had examined the Lucy skeleton itself: "For 15 years...[Zuckerman] studied fossils of Lucy and fossils of 1-2 million years younger than Lucy.

And then back in July of either 1982 or 1983, when San Diego public station KBPS aired an hour-long program on creationism called "Creation vs Evolution: Battle in the Classroom" Gish proclaimed the following:

"If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But on the other hand, if you look at certain other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullforg than he is to a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee."

This is supposedly based upon Berkeley geochronologist Garniss Curtis' remarks that he heard someone once claim that bullfrog blood proteins were similar to human blood proteins.

The problem is that Curtis was making a sarcastic remark. Tongue-in-cheek Curtis said that the "frog" which yielded the proteins was an enchanted prince. Obviously the claim has never been verified and the nature of the remark was explained but that didn't matter to Gish and he continued to repeat the claim at various debates.

I should note that AiG has recently replaced the article with another one from 2003 (they still had the original at least as late as mid 2015), but the Internet Archive Wayback machine still has the original: The Amazing Bombardier Beetle

[Sparko]

I think what John Martin did in his geocentrism threads is the closest I've gotten to a gish gallop in text form. He'd start by making twenty posts, which I responded to one by one. Then immediately after my responses he'd dump another huge load, so as to give the impression that I had only responded to a small part of it. Then the mods forced him to at least interact with the posts, so he'd respond to one post, then post four more new objects, etc...

If any debate on tweb was a Gish Gallop then that was clearly an instance of it.

But I agree with Rogue06, the key element is time to respond being the limiting factor. I'm not sure what I'd call an opponent that just offers up a wall of a bad evidence, so as to give the indication of a strong case... that's something else. I've sometimes heard of the term 'the four foot stack', in reference to UFO cases, which is the stack of the best UFO contact cases presented by ufo researchers who think there's evidence of alien/demonic visits. But I'd never call that Gish Gallopping.

The debates with the infamous Duane Gish were a sight to behold, mostly because he stayed to the exact same script, no matter what his opponents responded. There was at least one example of someone defending evolutionary biology who had prepared a counter script, with an answer and slide for each and everyone of Duane Gish's points. Relying on the fact that Gish always repeated himself. And Gish... just continued his gallop, never interacting with his opponent in any way.

Sigh... the glory days of the creationist crowd trying to convince everyone that what they were doing was science and could be taught in the public classrooms.

I miss those howlers. I much prefer them to the alt-right stuff we have today.

yes. this is one of the reasons he was eventually banned. We have a rule about making posts with too many disparate points to address. But rogue's post with 5 or 6 examples was not such a matter.