diversity is our strength

[Charles]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post531883

Where in the post? I am looking forward to seeing exactly where. So far all you have got are claims. I am starting to doubt if you even know what the fallacy of equivocation is since you find it so hard to demonstrate that it is there at all.

[Mountain Man]

Let me ask again. Where do I use an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misleading? Please show me where it is. I have asked quite many times now and you are yet to show it.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post531883

[Charles]

Let me ask again. Where do I use an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misleading? Please show me where it is. I have asked quite many times now and you are yet to show it.

[Mountain Man]

"Using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misleading."

[Charles]

It is when you sneakily imply that you're talking in broader terms.

1) I do not do so and I have told you that you are wrong in claiming so.
2) Even if i did so it is still not the fallacy of equivocation. I will give you the definition once again: "Using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misleading."

[Mountain Man]

...even if I used the word "diversity" in a narrow and rather specific sence then that in itself is not the fallacy of equivocation.

It is when you sneakily imply that you're talking in broader terms.

[Charles]

You imply that you're using the term "diversity" in its general sense when you are, in fact, referring to a specific ideology and political agenda. Textbook.

Ironically, suggesting, as liberals do, that diversity can only take a certain form and none other is not diversity but conformity, and in extreme cases it's outright bigotry.

That is your claim about my use of the term and I have already pointed out it is wrong.

However, even if I used the word "diversity" in a narrow and rather specific sence then that in itself is not the fallacy of equivocation. In order for it to be the fallacy of equivocation the same word needs to be used more than once and in two different meanings. You remember the definition: "Using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misleading."

Where do I use it in two different meanings in what I wrote?

[Mountain Man]

The fallacy of equivocation is defined as: "Using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misleading."

You imply that you're using the term "diversity" in its general sense when you are, in fact, referring to a specific ideology and political agenda. Textbook.

Ironically, suggesting, as liberals do, that diversity can only take a certain form and none other is not diversity but conformity, and in extreme cases it's outright bigotry.

[Charles]

I'm not sure if you realize that you're committing the fallacy of equivocation. When you say "diversity", you mean exclusively racial and cultural diversity, but even among a group of middle class American white males with a similar upbringing, you'll find a diversity of thought and opinion on any number of subjects, but that, of course, is not the kind of thing liberals are referring to when you use the term "diversity". [...]

The fallacy of equivocation is defined as: "Using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misleading."

The text you refer to as containing this fallacy is:

Your point is certainly dependent on the interpretation. You can focus on “working together” as the important part and say you are less focused on whether diversity is good or irrelevant as long as we work together but you could also hold the view that what we produce together gets better since we are diverse. Most of us get wiser and produce better if we are challenged by other ways of doing things and other ways of thinking. That part is lost in the “diversity is irrelevant” part.

I would like to see you point out where I am using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misleading.

[Charles]

Liberal "logic"...

Diversity
[ATTACH=CONFIG]27172[/ATTACH]


Not diversity
[ATTACH=CONFIG]27173[/ATTACH]

I amen'd by an error but since I give you so few I guess you can have this one :-)

What I wanted to point out is that this is just another case of you making up ideas about what "liberals" think (as if they all think the same). Whether the pictures show diversity or not of course depends on the context. I guess we can all agree that none of the pictures show any women, children and so on...

[Charles]

I'm not sure if you realize that you're committing the fallacy of equivocation. When you say "diversity", you mean exclusively racial and cultural diversity, but even among a group of middle class American white males with a similar upbringing, you'll find a diversity of thought and opinion on any number of subjects, but that, of course, is not the kind of thing liberals are referring to when you use the term "diversity". On the contrary, your kind of toxic political correctness leads to things like rejecting an eminently qualified candidate for curating an African art exhibit simply because she happens to be white.

You still did not point out where the contradiction is. I still don't see it.

I like the fact that you have to make up a fallacy where there is none. You wrote: “When you say "diversity", you mean exclusively racial and cultural diversity, but even among a group of middle class American white males with a similar upbringing, you'll find a diversity of thought and opinion on any number of subjects, but that, of course, is not the kind of thing liberals are referring to when you use the term "diversity". “

Where do I say that I only mean “racial and cultural diversity”? It is the topic we are discussing, yes, but that certainly does not mean that I restrict my point about diversity to only go for that part. So you are putting words in my mouth. It would be easier if we would all fit in such boxes, I agree. But actually it is rather interesting that we don’t.

[Mountain Man]

Keep in mind that for many liberals diversity means nothing more than a bunch of folks with different shades of skin all sharing the same (liberal) outlook.

Liberal "logic"...

Diversity
LIFTDance_037.jpg


Not diversity
stock-photo-group-of-men-isolated-on-white-background-134839979.jpg

[rogue06]

Keep in mind that for many liberals diversity means nothing more than a bunch of folks with different shades of skin all sharing the same (liberal) outlook.

[Mountain Man]

I still don’t see the contradiction…

Your point is certainly dependent on the interpretation. You can focus on “working together” as the important part and say you are less focused on whether diversity is good or irrelevant as long as we work together but you could also hold the view that what we produce together gets better since we are diverse. Most of us get wiser and produce better if we are challenged by other ways of doing things and other ways of thinking. That part is lost in the “diversity is irrelevant” part.

I'm not sure if you realize that you're committing the fallacy of equivocation. When you say "diversity", you mean exclusively racial and cultural diversity, but even among a group of middle class American white males with a similar upbringing, you'll find a diversity of thought and opinion on any number of subjects, but that, of course, is not the kind of thing liberals are referring to when you use the term "diversity". On the contrary, your kind of toxic political correctness leads to things like rejecting an eminently qualified candidate for curating an African art exhibit simply because she happens to be white.

[Charles]

These statements are logically equivalent:

"Diversity is good as long as we all work together."
"Diversity is irrelevant as long as we all work together."

In other words, the important thing is not diversity but working together.

I still don’t see the contradiction…

Your point is certainly dependent on the interpretation. You can focus on “working together” as the important part and say you are less focused on whether diversity is good or irrelevant as long as we work together but you could also hold the view that what we produce together gets better since we are diverse. Most of us get wiser and produce better if we are challenged by other ways of doing things and other ways of thinking. That part is lost in the “diversity is irrelevant” part.