He would already know that we are estranged-allies at best. He’s right though…maybe.
Of all the people I’m constantly disagreeing with you are easily my favorite to chat with. [:P]
i think we talk past each other… must be if what we each are saying is true.
What I am doing is apriori…
Actually it isn’t because I haven’t meet every racist in the entire world.
What? Now you are turning into a nihilist?
Actually I have already stated that if one sees a race as sub-human then they are less likely to respect their rights and treat them with value. Are you of the mind that if I hold extreme hatred for a race then I would be more likely to treat them in a positive fashion?
I can make a prediction. Whether they carry it out is apart of their free will. I believe that my predictions will be correct more the incorrect.
Explain why it can only be a posteriori.
Now you are the one lacking in what is a priorism. Apriorism is not devoid of all experience for we need to conceptualize our predictions in order to make them.
Because…? It doesn’t fit the definition in any way.
Isn’t a priori, yes.
Just someone who knows the difference between a priori ans a posteriori
Yes, you stated it, thats all you did. You really did prove anything though.
Nope.
Because such predictions can only come through empirical evidence, they are not know independently of experience, and since its not in the definition, it isn’t.
Wrong. It is completely independent of inexperience. It can make reference to though.
This is getting stupid, just look up the terms.
You shall be educated on the matter.
???
Did Long help you understand how you have been completely wrong for a page or so now?
Really? Must I actually quote the section that he says the general definition of apriorism is not that it lacks experience? How are we to conceptualize racism if we don’t actually experience it first? We wouldn’t even know what the hell it is in the first place. If I like ice cream, must I not actually taste ice cream first? I could try vanilla and say ‘Wow, I like ice cream’ and that would be an apriori statement for there are various flavors of ice cream. I don’t need to try moose tracks, chocolate, strawberry etc and then say ‘Wow, I like ice cream’ [ an a posteriori statement ]
Its already been conceptualized though, hence the definition, which does not include your addition of being prone toward violence. Not a priori.
Further, your example isn’t apt, as you are merely stating a preference (Subjective). To do it correctly, you would say “ice cream is frozen,” experience isn’t necessary to justify that statement as ice cream, by definition, is frozen. Experience may be necessary for you to discover the existence of ice cream, but that changes nothing in the greater field of knowledge, as you not knowing what ice cream is doesn’t change the fact that it is frozen, as it is, again, independent of experience. Just like bachelors are, by definition, unmarried (also, men) which contrasts, oh, say… racists, which aren’t, by definition, prone toward violence.I never once said that it lacks experience, it just doesn’t require your experience.
How you can conflate “I like ice cream” as being along the same lines as “racists are inclined to violence but due to free will they are not all violent at all times” is just astoundingly nonsensical.
In order to conceptualize and define racism one must actually experience it. Otherwise the individual might be under the false impression that racism is love or some other mistaken premise. Racism is a hatred for a specific race and what does hatred involve? Is it not hostility? Provocation? How is it wrong to state that the more hostile you are with an individual the more likely you are to commit violence against them? I will ask you again like I did before [ in which you agreed with but you will no doubt deny that ] If I am a racist, am I more inclined to be hostile towards the race I despise or friendly?
Oh so now you say experience is necessary?
Strange how you think that if I don’t know what racism is then racism just suddenly goes away.
Before you stated that I need to experience every racist in order to make the assertion that racists are prone to violence. Then you said ‘well you just need to experience ice cream to understand ice cream what ice cream is,’ now you are saying that I don’t need to experience it.
In the sense that they are both apriori. Saying ‘I like ice cream’ when I have not experienced every flavor that makes up what is ice cream is similarly asserted as ‘Racists are inclined to violence’ without actually experiencing every racist in the entire world.
You labor under a false delusion if you think that racists are ambivelant or show compassion to the race they hate. The KKK doesn’t go around handing out sunflowers to blacks.
Incorrect. One mustn’t experience every possible ism, in order for it to be defined, someone at sometime must. Not necessarily you.
Now you’ve gone and contradicted your above (false) assertion. Either there is a concrete definition or there isn’t. If there is, then your experience isn’t necessary, as the definition will suffice. If there isn’t, then you will need empirical evidence to support the claim that “racists are prone to violence.” Since you admit you do not have such research, you have just performed a big glaring contradiction.
Racism:
- The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
- Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Nothing about racism imply violence, or a tendency toward violence. You’ve just assumed hostility and ignored indifference. You’ve ignored right to associate and peaceful separation and inserted violence and hostility, you have completely ignored the definition and illogically came to your own conclusion regardless of factual information.
Even if your definition was correct it still doesn’t imply violence. Hatred is an intense dislike - it does not necessarily lead to provocation and violence - I hate bananas, I don’t go bezerk when I am near them and violently destroy them. I hate flip-flops, I don’t punch flip-flop wearers in the face, nor do I even consider such action. I just prefer to stay away from one almost bare feet.
Actually, I said the exact opposite. If you don’t know what racism is (like ice cream) it still exists.
Perhaps thats because the analogy was inapt. You don’t need to experience ice cream to learn what ice cream is (i.e. the definition), you don’t need to experience racism to learn what racism is (i.e. the definition), when you make assertions not included in the definitions, you need to have empirical research (i.e. ice cream make you fat, racists are prone to violence).
In the sense that one is an opinion based on taste and the other is simply a made up assertion. Not a priori.
Look, you’ve gotten the definition of racism wrong, and instead of admitting your error you said it was an a priori, which was also wrong, now you are throwing out ad hominems.
That is ridiculous. What one calls racism another may call love. Who is ‘collectivizing’ now?
In order to have such a definition, one must actually experience it. Otherwise you are merely accepting one’s definition at face value which could possibly be wrong.
I have experienced racism, therefore I can conceptualize it.
Again I have said, if you treat another like a baseless animal you are less likely to respect their rights. Do you think people are so easily rolled over by individuals who claim merely because they are a specific race then they are better then you?
Bananas are inanimate objects. If bananas stood up and started decrying how they are much better then you and you are a pox on society and should know your place in the world, then it would be rational to defend why you have value and you will come into confrontation.
Yes you do or how else would you know it was ice cream?
It is not a matter of taste, it is a matter of experiencing ever flavor that is ice cream.
No you are just convoluted in your argument and thus have been saying one thing and then another. It is rather tiresome.
What are you talking about? A Bachelor is a bachelor, ice cream is ice cream and racism is racism. Its definition is independent of how one feels about it.
Not “ones defintion” - THE definition. “Hey, I just met a bachelor, but, funny thing, the bachelor was a woman and married! Go tell Oxford, Princeton, and Merriam-Webster they got the definition wrong.”
Goodness you make no sense. How do you know you experienced it at all? If you have to actually experience it in order to define it (as you said), you would have no conception of what “it” was to begin with. You are using the definition of racism, experiencing something, and saying “now thats racism!”
Again, the definition of racism doesn’t include the “treament of others like baseless animals” so you have no point. Now, you could create a new term like, “evil-racist” and define it “as one who treats of others like baseless animals.” but currently you simply aren’t using the term correctly, yet you continue to use the term.
You certainly missed the…entire point. But…now you are against free speech? A person could say that without even having to worry about me using violence against them, there is nothing rational about such behaviour in my opinion.
Because you don’t actually have to come into contact with “it” at all. I know what a zebra is purely through definition and others presentation, I don’t go look at a cow and say “thats a zebra! I’ve experienced it!”
No, its a matter of taste that may or may not be an exaggeration on your part and the other was simply a made up assertion.
Are you sure its not just you contradicting yourself, contradicting yourself, getting definitions wrong, getting more definitions wrong, contradicting yourself…
Yeah, thats it, thats pretty much been everything.
Apriorism is not simply definitions.
Oh right, you give the definition that they think they are better then everyone else [ superior ], clearly that means they treat themselves as equal to those they deem inferior.
Well there actually is no right to free speech. However, you are foolish to think that individuals will just be told ‘Because of what you look like, that means you are weak, inferior, below me’ Do you not think it likely that the individual being told this will just say ‘Oh you are so right!’
Others presentation is experience. You cannot conceptualize a zebra by simply knowing the definition. You have to see a zebra in order to conceptualize it. If I were to give you a definition of a word I just invented [ let us say Xentoria ] and it was defined as: A square like building such as the Eiffel tower [ thus making an anti-concept ] then without actually seeing the Eiffel tower, you would run around calling all square like buildings xentorias. Notice without actually experiencing the Eiffel tower, a square like building then you have no understanding what is actually happening.
Apriorism is not simply definitions.
Oh right, you give the definition that they think they are better then everyone else [ superior ], clearly that means they treat themselves as equal to those they deem inferior.
Well there actually is no right to free speech. However, you are foolish to think that individuals will just be told ‘Because of what you look like, that means you are weak, inferior, below me’ Do you not think it likely that the individual being told this will just say ‘Oh you are so right!’
Others presentation is experience. You cannot conceptualize a zebra by simply knowing the definition. You have to see a zebra in order to conceptualize it. If I were to give you a definition of a word I just invented [ let us say Xentoria ] and it was defined as: A square like building such as the Eiffel tower [ thus making an anti-concept ] then without actually seeing the Eiffel tower, you would run around calling all square like buildings xentorias. Notice without actually experiencing the Eiffel tower, a square like building then you have no understanding what is actually happening.
Never said it was, now, do you actually have a refutation?
Actually, I haven’t made any assumptions about their actions at all, as they are nothing more than assumptions (pointless).
Actually I never made no mention th the “right to free speech.”
I never even alluded to such a thing. I said violence was an irrational response. “Oh you are so right” is just you not understanding or purposful misinterpretation.
Hmm.
Makes. no. sense.
You’ve ignored my previous post. How do you know “it” is a zebra to begin with? You are completely ignoring the purpose of definitions.
“…what is actually happening” - Nothing is actuall happening, that would be nothing more than a poorly defined word, your scenario just isn’t fitting.
When did you “conceptualize” a bachelor? How did it differ from the “face-value” definition? Where do you think…
This is getting absurd.
Then why do you keep on stating it is independent of experience as if the definition alone is apriori.
Actually you presented a definition in which the individual is committing the action of deeming others inferior to his/her superiority.
You made a comment about me respecting free speech. If there is no right to it why should I respect it?
Indeed you are right, violence is at most times irrational. Yet racism itself is always irrational.
If someone gave you the definition of blue..and you never experience what blue is then how could you know what blue looks like? Accordingly grass could be blue to you. The same for a chair. If you are told that a chair is a object used for sitting on and were thrown into a classroom you could possibly point to a desk and say ‘That is a chair’ and you would be wrong. Thus merely being told the definition by someone else does not infer that you actually know what they are defining unless you have experienced the object/sensation.
One of two ways: One I experience the presence of a zebra and say 'What is that?" and deduce through taxonomy what it actually is. Or I can read taxonomy, experience a zebra and deduce through the process of elimination what it is.
Yet how do you know it is poorly define if you never experienced the Eifel tower?
To remind you, stating ‘All bachelors are unmarried’ is not the whole definition to bachelors. It is true that bachelors are unmarried however, that does not sufficiently limit the field to who bachelors actually are.
Now do you actually have a refutation?
Uh…no, you collectivesed them by saying they were more prone to violence, are you now saying that was nothing more than you being pointless?
And? That doesn’t imply violence in any way.
Multiple reasons actually.
As is collectivism, even when applying it to racists.
Who said definitions depend merely on “someone else,” not I.
But you are still avoiding the question, how do you know you experienced it at all? If you have to actually experience it in order to define it (as you said), you would have no conception of what “it” was to begin with.
Irrelevant, I haven’t used the term. However, well defined words require concise explanations not vague allusions to.
Again, ignoring the question.
Why is it true that bachelors are unmarried? You’ve just committed the very error you were trying to avoid.
This whole discussion we are having on definitions being validated by experience.
You are quoting your own statement boy wonder.
Oh great then you will be able to tell me one.
Well I don’t think you have a functional definition of what collectivism is, so I see this statement as a platitude.
Let’s try to rethink that statement.
How do I know I’ve experienced experience? Or how do I know I have experienced a zebra?
Again what I said before, through logical deduction. I look at a zebra [ I may not know what it is called ] but I ask what is this beast? I look at the characteristics of it and deduce the taxomony of it. Its got four legs, black and white stripes, etc.
Clearly you have yet to delve into the english language. There are numerous amounts of defined words that are by no means concise.
Its not ignoring the question. I made a statement that apriori statements are no simply a matter of definition. By stating ‘All bachelors are unmarried’ I do not thereby explicitly state that bachelors are men. There is a divide between that statement and the definition of bachelors. If you think there isn’t and think that the statement I made above IS the very definition of bachelors itself, then you cannot deny that such a statement will be applied to women as well for women too can be unmarried. Therefore this apriori statement is not the definition of bachelors nor is it devoid of SOME necessary experience in order to validate it. What makes it an apriori statement is that I do not need to go to every individual who is unmarried and say ‘Ok are you a bachelor?’
You’re exactly right. I am done discussing your lackluster understanding of a simple concept.
Explain how, without experience, one can get ice cream, bachelors, and racism wrong.
Wrong, you did say they were more prone to violence, multiple times now. Without using logic to come to your conclusions or by presenting one shred of evidence to boot.
Cost-benefit analysis, could be a pacifist like Ghandi (who was a racist), it could be many a’reason.
Collectivism - the subjugation of the individual to a group - saying a racist is prone to violence is, in fact, collectivism. You have taken the racist, an individual, and said he is prone to violence, lumping him in a group. Collectivism.
Both.
Logical deduction does not churn out “zebra.” You may see a zebra then stumble upon it in a book, like, say, a dictionary, and go “by golly, that was a Zeebrah I saw that day” but you only learned it was a “zebra” by it already being defined.
Agreed. However, I wouldn’t put zebra, bachelor, or racism on that list.
A priori knowledge is gained through logical deduction. If the definition of “bachelor” is an unmarried man, then logically one can derive the statement “all bachelors are unmarried” now, that statement is still equally as true as the statement “all bachelors are unmarried men.” We’ve already gone over this and I explained it. Since a bachelor is, by definition, an unmarried man, its self-evident that all bachelors are unmarried and its also self-evident that all bachelors are men. How is it self-evident? Because the definition of bachelor was conceived beforehand, the definition is the basis for the deduction. Everything is derived from the definition. If you want to challenge the validity or concisiveness of the definition due to ones experiences and empirical evidence thats fine, but that is a different story.