All X’s have the property Y (this being a characterization, not a fact).
Z is an X.
Therefore, Z has the property Y.

Did you miss the post where MrWookie said he did not believe a racist should be a moderator? He is a racist, this obsfugation from that central point is largely due to the cool kids, not me. I cant help the cool kids manipulate or distort the meaning of stereotype at will.

And what? I have said that white people have white privilege. That is my argument, notice that this doesn't stand for Asian drivers. Be clear though the privilege that white people have is white privilege. This does not mean they are privileged in terms of wealth.

Suppose we are in a poker game. When you win a pot, the rake is 10%. When anybody else wins a pot, there is no rake. Rake doesn't affect me personally. Did I gain an advantage? I think you might say that.

I can't parse this.

Its a logical fallacy, its a stereotype. If you do not understand this, I do not know how else to explain it.

Then try harder. It is not a stereotype it is a means to explain the difference in treatment that white people receive that non white people don't. In Ireland a person will not be discriminated against because they are white, this is not true of non white people who are discriminated against because they are not white. This provides the white privilege that is a property of being white.

I just wanted to make a point....that not everyone is impacted by racism. If you do not think gaining an advantage is an indicator of impact, then the problem is on your end. With that said, I know what your point is, you should reword your initial argument because it betrays the "whites are privileged" argument as you explicitly acknowledged that many people are not impacted by racism.

You are trying to validate a stereotype using empirical evidence. You've provided no logical argument as to why its not a stereotype.

"Whites are privileged" is a stereotype. Irrefutably.

No I'm not, I'm providing you an explanation of white privilege. By not being subject to discrimination on grounds of race white people are privileged over those who are discriminated against on those grounds. It's pretty simple.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. I hope it's some sort of deliberately ironic meta-obfuscation of the word obfuscation, but somehow I doubt it.

The logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.


All X’s have the property Y (this being a characterization (privileged), not a fact).
Z is an X.
Therefore, Z has the property Y.

nit.

Of course, you can't actually convince people to become better posters by being an even worse poster yourself.

Genuine hate speech ITT.

What point of mine do you think this challenges? I have already acknowledged this with the "so what" you responded to earlier. So to be clear;

P1 All white people have white privilege.
P2 I am a white person
C I have white privilege.

Now this argument is valid, whether it is sound rests upon the validity of it's premises, P2 is uncontroversial which means you can challenge P1, if you want to do that fine but white privilege is pretty well understood.

My defence of P1 is that white privilege is the privilege of not being discriminated against for not being white.

Are you saying that white privilege isn't a thing? If you are, I don't necessarily think you're a racist, but you're clearly incredibly stupid and contributing to the problem.

All of them.

This is a good point, so I'll help Anus out on this one.

Braves is an idiot because he thinks he's trolling when really every single person here is much better at trolling than he is and any responses he gets are going to be people mocking him that he will mistakenly believe are falling for his novice quality trolling which will result in him "turning up the heat", much to every else's amusement/eye rolling/disgust.

This is you trying to join the cool kids club.

This one:
No, its not. Its an argument based on a false premise that uses a stereotype which is illogical.

White privilege is a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of a human being or commonly referred to as a stereotype.

All white people have [insert noun].

The only nouns you use that would prevent it from being a stereotype are ones that every single human being would qualify as having with the exception of "white skin" (which necessarily would not be correct either) or in essence, an inherent characteristic. In other words, there is not a single non-biological noun you can place in there with out it being a stereotype and even then some biological traits of humans would not qualify, such as "brown hair". Another way to put it, it must be a fact that all white people have it. All White people having privilege is not a fact.

White people are [insert adjective].

There is not a single adjective or a word or phrase naming an attribute, added to or grammatically related to a noun to modify or describe it that would make this not a stereotype, except for white and that's not necessarily fact either.

The idea that you think "white privilege" or "whites are privileged" gets a special exemption from this is absurd. It really is and add in the fact that you have a small group of merry misfits who agree with you makes it even more compelling case of cognitive dissonance.

Validity does not require that the premises be correct soundness does. All white people have white privilege is not an argument it's a claim. It forms 1 premise of the argument that consists also of P2 and C.

I have pointed out that you can challenge premise 1 and I have explained why I defend it. If you continue to miss the point and get this pretty basic **** wrong there's really no point in continuing.

I will try to make it a little clearer,

P1 All white people have white privilege.

This is not an argument and as such is neither valid or sound, it is a premise that may either be true or false

P1 All white people have white privilege.
P2 I am a white person
C I have white privilege.

Is an argument, for it to be valid requires only that the conclusion is entailed by the premises hence if P1 and P2 are true C is true. Now You can argue that P1 isn't true but that does not make the argument invalid it means the argument is not sound.

What? Your premise is not logically valid. Whether its true or not is irrelevant.

You can defend it all you want, its a stereotype.

Its false.

Go ask a straight person the following:

"Does your mom know your gay?"

You must have a logically sound premise to base an argument/concept/question from. You illogically associate white privilege with all white people.

True or false:

White people are privileged.

I bet you say true. I say, its an illogical premise.

Finally, you cant consider P2 or C, you stop at P1 because its invalid premise.

I suspect my earnestness in replying to you genuinely is getting me trolled but as I have **** all better to do I'll continue.

An argument is logically valid or not, a premise is true or false, you're confusing them, a premise may also be the conclusion of another argument but that's not what is being discussed here.

Now I have stated why I think the premise is true all you are doing is claiming it's false while not explaining why. If white privilege is the privilege afforded those who are not discriminated against on the grounds of not being white, just what part of the premise

P1 All white people have white privilege.

Are you claiming is false.

The premise is neither logical nor illogical it is either true or false. You want to start getting to grips with really basic logic if you are going to make claims about posters illogicality.

I promise I'm not trolling.

I think you are confused. Lets say you are straight...

True or false?

"Does your mom know your gay?"

You do not answer the question, you refute the premise.

You are asking me, essentially, if its true or not that my mom knows I'm gay. Its a loaded question. I incorrectly said false, I should not have....I should of continued to refute the premise which has been my objection all along.

You are not explaining why

Pa White people are privileged.

is equivalent to

Pq Does your mom know you are gay?

The second relies on the premise that you are gay but it is not a claim or a premise it is a question.

Pa is an assertion and may form a premise of an argument, Pq is a question and as such can not be used as a premise of an argument.

These are not equivalent and it's not me that's confused.