frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Latino is not a "Race", nor is "Hispanic" or "Mexican"

Opening Argument

There's a massive amount of misinformation on the World Wide Web today concerning Race versus Ethnicity.  My post today aims to correct and inform the would-be ignorance toting Race Mongers.

1.  Latino: No matter where you search, any official definition or meaning of the word "Latino" will include the word "Ancestry" or "Origin".  From an intellectual standpoint this excludes the word "Latino" from describing any Race simply because a Human's Race cannot be determined by his place of birth.  There are White people born in Africa and Black people born in China.  Birthplace does not affect your Race...period.  From an official standpoint, "Latino" is definitively used to describe your ethnicity "Regardless" of your race ~U.S. Census Bureau~

2.  Hispanic: Again we're right back to "Ancestry" or "Origin".  Officially the word is used to again describe people who's origin is of one of several Countries and is completely and totally exclusive from Race.  ~U.S. Census Bureau~

3.  Mexican: Now we're getting somewhere...but then again we're stuck at a similar answer.  Being "Mexican" has nothing to do with your Race, if it did then anyone with citizenship in Mexico would qualify as one Race.  A "Mexican" is someone who holds citizenship in Mexico, Mexico is a geographical location on the Earth and therefor cannot be a Race. 

So unless someone suggests that all Latinos or all Hispanics or all Mexicans are one single Race...then we are left with accepting that none of these words aptly identify any Race at all.  If both my parents were born in Mexico and gave birth to me...I would in fact be Hispanic...even though my skin is white as snow.

I would suggest as an idea that people with dark or light brown skin who's lineage follows Hispanic or Latino ethnicity do not have a Racial identity unless you count the term "Mestizo".  I'll be honest when I say that I have never, ever heard anyone use that term to describe a Race of people but it is a legally and officially recognized term that aptly describes people of mixed-race who typically come from Central and South American Countries. 
claxbaerthepridenorthsouthkoreabillpassed
  1. Latino AND Hispanic are terms that identify a Race of Human Beings

    23 votes
    1. No
      52.17%
    2. Yes
      47.83%

Status: Open Debate

Arguments

  • That's a good point @Vaulk . I agree, because Mexican etc. are sunroofs of Latino. In general(m, they are not considered to be races.
  • They identify a race as said. Latino is at the top of tree while he there are sunroofs and another user said.
  • VaulkVaulk 242 Pts

    They identify a race as said. Latino is at the top of tree while he there are sunroofs and another user said.
    @johannarunel ; Is there any reason you think that these words identify a Race?
  • These words don't identify a race at all, I completely agree with @Vaulk .
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • inc4tinc4t 137 Pts
    @Vaulk, another amazing debate.  Very comprehensive, logical, and I agree.
  • ale5ale5 146 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Vaulk, respectfully, I think that this debate is quite academic.  If technically Latino or Mexicans are not a "race" that is fine, and I agree with you that it is confusing as the line is a bit blurry.  But if we are trying to say they that discriminating against Latino's like in the other article about waiter discriminating against Latino women by asking for ID, that is still a strong form of racial profiling regardless of the technical nuances.
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • PinoPino 67 Pts
    As I understand it the term Latino is to describe the citizens of those South American nations whose language is based on latin, i.e, Spanish,Portuguese and Italian. 
    Mexican denotes someone from Mexico.
    I can only guess that Hispanic refers to someone from a South American country which was settled by the Spanish. 
  • VaulkVaulk 242 Pts
    ale5 said:
    @Vaulk, respectfully, I think that this debate is quite academic.  If technically Latino or Mexicans are not a "race" that is fine, and I agree with you that it is confusing as the line is a bit blurry.  But if we are trying to say they that discriminating against Latino's like in the other article about waiter discriminating against Latino women by asking for ID, that is still a strong form of racial profiling regardless of the technical nuances.
    I would have to ask "How does anyone know the ethnicity of the Women in the article"?  I lean back on my original point, that having an ethnic background has absolutely nothing to do with one's Race.  Likewise, being of a particular Race does not determine one's ethnicity so I then ask myself "How would one go about targeting a "Latino" person when attempting to Racially Profile someone"?  The answer I come up with is "It doesn't seem possible".  There's no way someone could guess your ethnicity being that your skin could be black as midnight and your ancestry could be traced back 10 generations and be all Chinese or some other Asian origin.  The point here is that while Racial profiling can include your ethnicity...there's no way to determine someone's ethnicity because your ethnicity is completely and totally unrelated to your Race. For example "She looks Latino" is an ignorant statement because "Latino" is an Ethnicity and has nothing to do with what you look like.  Ethnicity is about culture...not physical characteristics.

    Ethnicity is the term for the culture of people in a given geographic region, including their language, heritage, religion and customs. To be a member of an ethnic group is to conform to some or all of those practices.  Race and ethnicity can obviously overlap, but they are distinct.




  • CovenyCoveny 378 Pts
    There is only one race... human. The rest are constructs. Not to mention they all have the same ancestry if you go far enough back.
    aarongSilverishGoldNova
  • randalrandal 59 Pts
    I agree @coveny , everyone could be from the same ancestry at some point in the past.
  • I believe that humans are not all the same and disagree with @coveny . Over time, humans developed and that's what makes us different. 
  • CovenyCoveny 378 Pts
    But that's true with any race @kmelkevolution17. To break off into another race would require a major difference. For example the difference between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. We don't disagree that both a beagle and spaniel are the same race... dog. 
  • I disagree with @coveny , You can consider to be those two types of dogs "races" as well, dogs could be related to a "kind" like human kind.
  • VaulkVaulk 242 Pts
    There are well established Racial boundaries in the Human Species.  I for one don't believe in the evolution of Human beings but I also concede that we can be classified as a type of animal.  Classification of living things has never been about establishing a superiority or inferiority index, classification is about understanding differences, uniqueness, individuality and the reasoning behind these things.  Race is nothing more than a classification of Human beings, a classification of distinct physical characteristics like: Black Skin or White Skin...these are very distinct physical characteristics.  Also @Coveny , Humanity is not a Race, it is a well established Species by all scientific standards, the Hebrew Bible even describes Humans as a "Kind" of being among beings (Regarding living creatures on the Earth). 

    Since our current classification of Race is skewed, we're going to have to establish something before we can really address the Race issue and that is that, by definition, Race is synonymous with Ethnicity.  This is a problem because logically the idea of Race and Ethnicity being one and the same does not make sense.  How is it that Race and Ethnicity can be the same thing if you can be Black (Which is a Race) and simultaneously of pure European Decent (Which is an Ethnicity)?  The answer is: "It's not possible to be both Black and European if Race and Ethnicity are the same thing".  By definition, you would have to be one or the other, you could not be both otherwise Race and Ethnicity would have to be separate from each other and independent.  So let us understand that Race and Ethnicity are totally separate because everyone here can concede that it is VERY possible to be both Black and European.

    And @Coveny , every classification system in the world is a Construct...including "Humanity" because we designated ourselves as such and there is no empirical evidence to suggest that our classification was correct...it just is because we all agree that it is.  And your suggestion that ancestry has anything to do with your Race is off target, if 10 generations of Caucasian breeding resulted in a Black child...the child's Race would in fact be "Black", the ancestry has nothing to do with what physical characteristics the child inherits from recessive genes.  Your "Race" is determined by YOUR distinct physical characteristics...not those of your ancestors.


  • CovenyCoveny 378 Pts
    @Vaulk No classification of a living thing is about stereotyping. Our primitive brains are scared of all snakes because over the years we stereotype snake with death, and as we well know that fear is mostly unfounded except for a few exceptions. The same holds true for race. We use it to stereotype by color, and it then becomes an us vs them because they are "different" from us. Queue fighting. No we don't have to define race by Ethnicity, we don't have to define race at all. It's not needed color is more about how much sun your family has gotten than anything else. There is no "need" for the race construct/label/classification it's an outdated physical description.
  • VaulkVaulk 242 Pts
    @Coveny , to use the same logic that you've provided
    Coveny said:
    @Vaulk No classification of a living thing is about stereotyping. Our primitive brains are scared of all snakes because over the years we stereotype snake with death, and as we well know that fear is mostly unfounded except for a few exceptions. The same holds true for race. We use it to stereotype by color, and it then becomes an us vs them because they are "different" from us. Queue fighting. No we don't have to define race by Ethnicity, we don't have to define race at all. It's not needed color is more about how much sun your family has gotten than anything else. There is no "need" for the race construct/label/classification it's an outdated physical description.
    Without classification of any sort, we wouldn't be able to identify which snakes are venomous and which ones aren't.  Que death by venomous snake bite due to an inability to identify a deadly animal.  I love that logic btw...seriously.  And I'm afraid I disagree, just because there are Humans in our world who use the classification system to stereotype...that doesn't mean the system itself was created for nefarious purposes.  This logic that you've provided would be the same logic that dictates that ANYTHING used by Humans for nefarious purposes should be deemed evil.  This is a classic case of blaming the pencil for grammar error, blaming the cheeseburger for obesity and blaming guns for violence...I respectfully decline to agree with any of that logic.
    premiumlegislature
  • CovenyCoveny 378 Pts
    @Vaulk it's good to know that you equate people of color to venomous snakes that will kill you. I can TOTALLY see where that is an apples to apples comparison. On that same note my wife knows like 200 different colors when she shops for paint, so by your logic we should definitely break color down even further.. you know so that we can classify everyone"better". You love my logic? Good news I love yours. If you actually want to prove mine faulty you have to prove a valid reason to classify people by color, AND you have to prove that basic colors like black, white, yellow should be used rather than more granular colors. I'm not blaming color because of the racist, as I already stated it's a primitive urge to create the us verses them mentality. 

    http://www.theemotionmachine.com/the-us-vs-them-mentality-how-group-thinking-can-irrationally-divide-us/
  • VaulkVaulk 242 Pts
    @Coveny , I still haven't seen any evidence to support that the reason classifications were created was to use it to create an "Us versus them mentality".
    claxbaer
  • claxbaerclaxbaer 7 Pts
    I agree with @vaulk , although @Coventry made some great arguments.
  • CovenyCoveny 378 Pts
    Vaulk said:
    @Coveny , I still haven't seen any evidence to support that the reason classifications were created was to use it to create an "Us versus them mentality".
    That's because I didn't say the reason race was created was to use it as an us vs them mentality, so I don't have to support it. No burden of proof over here, I never claimed nefarious intentions. That's the strawman you attempt to apply to me. I still have not seen YOUR proof of why we need race, and why it should only be the colors chosen rather than something more granular. You gonna get to that?
  • VaulkVaulk 242 Pts
    @Coveny

    "@Vaulk No classification of a living thing is about stereotyping."  Your statement here indicates clearly that you believe that "Classification of a living thing" is about stereotyping.  Since by definition, Race is in fact a classification, then YES, you DID claim nefarious intentions because stereotyping is nefarious by definition.  It's negative and cannot be applied in a constructive manner.

    Why we need "Race" is more of a question of why we need "Classification" because "Race" is in fact a classification of Human Beings.  So first, why do we need classification?  The Scientific community is majorly responsible for the classification of living things and the reasoning provided for this is such: Classification is important because it allows scientists to identify, group, and properly name organisms via a standardized system (Linnaeus Taxonomy); based on similarities found in the organisms DNA/RNA (genetics), Adaptations (Evolution), and Embryonic development (Embryology) to other known organisms to better study and understand the new organism as a whole.

    So to condense this in layman's terms, we use a standardized system of classification of living things in order to easily achieve identification of those living things.  This explains the fundamental principle of classification and why we need it but doesn't address Race specifically so let's go there next.

    Why we need the classification of "Race" is the same reason we need the classification of Nationality, Citizenship, Ethnicity and Genealogy.  The classification allows us to easily identify Human Beings for a multitude of purposes.  Firstly, we as Human Beings have a need to be individual, individuality is critical now just as it always has been.  The idea that we should remove a method of identifying ourselves as unique just because a minority of the People of the Earth also use it to discriminate is without merit.  Secondly, there is no denying that we are all different as a matter of empirical fact.  Because we as Humans are all different in multiple ways, we all see the world differently and our Race and Ethnicity are both not only methods of identifying ourselves but are also part of the way we self-identify, the way we understand our history, our social institutions and our world.  Race has several implications other than just being a method of identifying another person, for example: My Race is one of the defining characteristics of my culture, my social history, my Ethnic background.  You cannot simply outcast a classification system that people have used since the beginning of time to self-identify just because there are people in the world who would use the system to stereotype. 

    In summary, Race is a social construct, with it we develop Racial Identity and Ethnic Identity...both of which are used by people to understand our social atmosphere, our individual history and the world that we live in today.  Yes there are sick individuals that still try to use Race as a negative divider in our Society...but deleting a system of self-identification is not the answer to combating the ignorance that is discrimination and prejudice.  Race very well may have been created to establish an order of superiority...but today's world that ideology is mostly frowned upon and we (U.S. Citizens) live in a Country that has made more progress towards Racial Equality than any other Country in the World.



    agsr
  • CovenyCoveny 378 Pts
    @Vaulk ok well that was a big post. 

    My statements
    Classifications is about stereotyping
    Stereotyping leads to a us vs them mentality because of primal tendencies
    Race should be removed because it's not useful

    Somehow out of that you got anytime you classify things it's for nefarious reasons. Nowhere in there did I say anything about intentions or reasons. As previously stated don't have to defend your strawman of my argument, and I'm not gonna...

    We need classification, but it does not logically follow that we need the classification of race. Just because classification is valid, does not mean that all classifications are valid. Your logic is flawed. Yes the scientific community does mostly classify things, and we are classified as humans, or homo sapiens scientists have no phylum below that designation. (thanks for supporting my argument) 

    Race is not equal to any of those. Nationality is a political construct that has nothing to do with science, and could be removed as well. Citizenship is a legal status used by countries to track people, that's like saying we are classified by having a driver's license or not, Ethnicity has some uses, but they are weak. Genealogy is a joke, as we all go back to the same ancestors so it really doesn't classify us at all. Wait what? Where and how did you prove that classification allows us to identify PURPOSE?!?! Really? So I'm a black person how is my "purpose" different from a white persons? Wow I just can't believe you went ... there.

    ROFL so classifying us into a group ... is a way it identify ourselves as unique? 



    Oh yes race is definitely a way you self-identify, and it has several implications beyond that. Not disagreeing with that.

    Now on the point of culture, social history, and ethnic background however I will disagree. Please explain what white culture is, white history is, and white ethnic background is. Because spoiler alert English, Germany, Russians, etc, are all considered "white" and they are VERY different. There is no such thing as white any of that BS you're selling.

    In summary, race is a social construct, with it people develop racial identity used to divide people with the same ethnic backgrounds. Both used to understand who to hate, and where they fit in the social hierarchy. It serves no purpose, and provides nothing but an illusory boundary to divide the human race. Race is all about the same people living slightly different distance from the equator and hating each other for it. There is rampant racism in this country. 

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/?utm_term=.de410011bd3e

    But I guess you are "white" so it doesn't affect you...
    agsr
  • agsragsr 540 PtsPremium MemberTechnology Community Moderator
    Premium MemberTechnology Community Moderator
    @Coveny and @Vaulk , you are both making compelling arguments. Excellent debate.
    I would like to add that this debate can also morph to discussion regarding merits of affirmative action.  If race and ethnicity wouldn't be relevant then notion of affirmative action would go away.

    Live Long and Prosper
  • VaulkVaulk 242 Pts
    @Coveny ,

    "Classifications is about stereotyping" This means that Classification is on the subject of or concerning Stereotyping.  This is untrue, classification CAN BE USED to stereotype, but that's not what classification is about.  Likewise "Freedom of Speech" CAN BE USED to spew racist comments but that doesn't meant that "Freedom of Speech is about Spewing Racism"

    And you're right, stereotyping does in fact lead to an "Us versus them" mentality and that ideology is nefarious in nature because it harms by design.  And so, you have in fact argued that Stereotyping is what Classification is about...when the idea is absurd.  If that were the case then Nationality (A person's country of origin) would be a form of stereotyping when it's obviously not.  By your logic, identifying a person by their Religion (Because Religion has been and currently is a classification) would be stereotyping and stereotyping is wrong...so then identifying a person by their religion would be immoral.  Can you not see the absolute absurdity of this argument?
    hureancultr
  • CovenyCoveny 378 Pts
    @Vaulk maybe there is a misunderstand of what stereotyping is. Stereotyping is when you say mosquito bite me in the past, I judge this mosquito is going to bite me if given the chance. When science classifies something, they say that it acts, behaves, and is composed like other of this classification. Cats is a classification, and now that we have that classification we can start talking about what makes that classification different and the same as other classifications. Cats are defined by saying the have four legs, sharp claws, nocturnal, eat mice, etc We have to stereotype what it is to be a cat. We have to create the sameness. Now it's super helpful when it comes to poisonous snakes, you just say screw it, all snake will bite you and could kill you. But just like some cat's don't have four legs, sharp claws, nocturnal, or eat mice neither will all snakes kill you. It is however in your best interest not to take a life and death risk because sure maybe you'll kill a garden snake unjustly, but really who cares if a garden snake dies? I know I don't, and I'm not advocating garden snakes rights. However if you apply that to blacks, then me and you have a problem. Classification is only true at higher levels of abstracts, it is false in the lower levels of abstraction across the board, because even in the animal world all animals within the same classification don't act the same. It's a simply system, and is badly flawed, but it can help you to stay alive, so that's why evolution gave it to us. There however needs to be a point at which you say, hey I don't need that crap, my life isn't threatened, and people really are individuals, and I should evaluate each one individually.
    hureancultr
  • I agree with @vaulk . @coveny also made some very informative points which are also valid. My personal belief lines up with @vaulk 's a little bit more. It's not really stereotyping, more of being safe.
    manetai
  • VaulkVaulk 242 Pts
    @Coveny , we've identified the problem here.  You seem to believe that your personal opinion of what a word means somehow justifies you using it in a manner that fits your agenda. 

    The meaning of the word "Stereotype" is: something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; especially :  a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment.  Source: Merriam Webster's Dictionary. 

    Stereotyping has nothing to do with the precedence of something happening like "A mosquito bite".  It's a widely known fact that Mosquitoes bite living creatures and suck their blood, there's no prejudice in the belief that a Mosquito will bite you given the chance...therefor the belief that a Mosquito will bite you is NOT stereotyping. 

    @Coveny Your use of the word stereotype in this context is incorrect at very best and at worst it's misleading, deceiving and very possibly an attempt at pushing an agenda through illegitimate means (Using a word under false pretense to prove a point.  "Stereotype" does not mean what you've said it means.  Your example of an established precedence of Mosquito bites is incomparable to what a stereotype actually is.

    Also, attempting to compare the genetic defects of a Cat to the differences in totally different species of snakes...you're either lost on this or you truly are trying to deceive people into thinking you can logically make this comparison.  Cats DO have four legs, sharp claws, SOME are nocturnal, and just because some are born with the genetic deficiency that prevents them from having all four legs or sharp claws...that doesn't mean their difference is the same as the difference between venomous and non-venomous snakes...WHAT?!  You seriously tried to say that if two cats stood side by side, one with four legs and one with three, then that's the same thing as two snakes sitting side by side...one with venom and the other without...WHAT?!

    To summarize: Stereotyping IS NOT defined as @Coveny has said it is which defeats a majority of his argument.  Believing that a Mosquito will bite you IS NOT stereotyping.  Minority Genetic abnormalities in types of animals IS NOT the same thing as different classifications of Species (Normal Cats and 3-legged cats VS Non-venomous and venomous snakes)...cannot compare, are incomparable and is a stretched out and twisted type of logic.

    And Lastly: Just because you *Think* a word means something...that doesn't make it true.  We don't get to change the meaning of a word in order to fit it into our agenda...that's called deception. 

    "Words mean things" ~Vaulk~


    thepride
  • CovenyCoveny 378 Pts
    @Vaulk yes I’m the one who tries to make words fit their agenda… then pulls a definition out of their butt. Words do mean things. /sarcasm off

    There is this really cool feature they released on the internet recently where you can link another site… in a post. <mind blown> So if I go to Merriam Webster’s website and get their definition of stereotype you can link it!!!! https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stereotype

    Now for the record that is a horrible definition. I mean really how can you call it a definition when you use the word to define itself? It's not what you said it was, and personal opinion of what a word means is how did you put it… misleading, deceiving, and illegitimate?

    So, I’m going to go with the Oxford definition:

    Stereotype - “A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.”

    Now lets compare that with Classfy
    Classify - “Arrange (a group of people or things) in classes or categories according to shared qualities or characteristics.”

    I will refer way back up there now and pull a previous statement of mine:
    Classifications is about stereotyping

    How do you know the qualities and characteristics of something? Could be it because there is a widely held fixed but oversimplified idea of that thing is? How is somethings image/idea different from its characteristics/qualities? The only really difference between these words is how scientifically we box the objects up. Or to put another way classification is about stereotyping in a more scientific way, which can be shortened to “Classification is about stereotyping”. That looks familiar for some reason...

    A mosquito is a type of insect. Did you see how that sentence defined type(from stereotype) and characteristics (from classification)? Crazy, right? But it get's worse…

    Next up the idea of/type vs characteristics of a thing in relation to the actions is expected to preform.
    A characteristic of some types of insects is that they drink blood. BOOM is your mind blown? See how I defined an action with both type and characteristics again? I could split this into two sentences as well “When I think of mosquitos I imagine vampires”(stereotype) and “Bats are another category of creatures that drink blood.”(classification). It’s just crazy isn’t it all the overlap?

    Ya just because YOU “think” a word means something… does not make it true. We don’t get to change the meaning of a word to fit it into our agenda… that’s called deception.

    “Words mean things” Coveny

    Oh PS … links mean something too. 

    thepride
  • thepridethepride 7 Pts
    That's an interesting point from @vaulk Andy @coveny , although words mean something, some different meanings can come up over time. My argument is this...

    Hispanic, Latino, Mexican... all the same thing or simialar. They come from the same routes or relative ones. They simply live in different regions or some of them. It's like comparing a Texan, Californian and New Yorker, they're speech may be different and maybe some other things, but they all live in American and are relatively simialar.
  • VaulkVaulk 242 Pts
    @Coveny , a "Widely held fixed but oversimplified idea" is an opinion.  That's the great thing about words again, we're talking about a widely held opinion.

    Opinion: A view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
    ‘that, in my opinion, is right’

    Idea:
    An opinion or belief.

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/idea

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/opinion

    Now let's look at

    Characteristic: A feature or quality belonging typically to a person, place, or thing and serving to identify them.

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/characteristic

    Idea is synonymous with opinion.  So your question
    How is somethings image/idea different from its characteristics/qualities?

    The obvious answer is this: The idea of something is not necessarily based on fact or knowledge by definition.  The characteristics of something are established features and qualities that serve to identify them. 

    Idea: Subjective
    Characteristic: Objective

    Again you're trying to force an opinion as if it's fact.  You "Believe" that the characteristics of something are one and the same with the idea of that same thing.  I respect your opinion.  I do not however, respect any opinion that is presented as fact especially when presented with such brazen flawed logic.




  • CovenyCoveny 378 Pts
    Brazen flawed logic @Vaulk ;says... 

    "not necessarily based on fact or knowledge"

    So an opinion, ergo an idea, may be based on facts, or in other words ideas can be objective.Dare I take the next step and say that classifications are just ideas that have been proven in a more scientific way?  

    So let's take this back to the topic at hand. In your opinion "the image of white is subjective, and the characteristic of white is objective right? You are going to need to explain to me how my logic is flawed? Because the logic you are disagreeing with is the image white(visual), different from the characteristic white(visual). You are on the side that race is a characteristic not a stereotype. So tell me what objective "facts" to do you have for the classification "white" that turns it from a subjective (visual) to an objective (visual)?

    Was this supposed to prove that my logic was flawed? Because I'm not feeling it, I'm feeling more like you're supporting my logic than discrediting it.

    Wanna give it another go?
  • VaulkVaulk 242 Pts
    @Coveny
    Coveny said:
    So an opinion, ergo an idea, may be based on facts, or in other words ideas can be objective.Dare I take the next step and say that classifications are just ideas that have been proven in a more scientific way?  

    The answer to your question is "No".  Classifications are not just ideas that have been proven in a more scientific way.  There is no reference that will say so and this cannot be deduced logically.  An idea can be based upon objective thought but any opinion you draw cannot be objective because of the nature of objectivity.

    Objective: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
    Subjective:  Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/opinion
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/idea
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/subjective
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/objective
    Coveny said:
    You are going to need to explain to me how my logic is flawed? Because the logic you are disagreeing with is the image white(visual), different from the characteristic white(visual). You are on the side that race is a characteristic not a stereotype. So tell me what objective "facts" to do you have for the classification "white" that turns it from a subjective (visual) to an objective (visual)?
    Explanation: A fallacy is an incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric which undermines an argument's logical validity or more generally an argument's logical soundness.

     In this case, you've presented the following:

    1.  Cats with more or less than three legs as opposed to Cats with four can be compared to Snakes that are venomous as opposed to snakes that are not venomous.
        a.  This is a clear case of fallacy.  The reason it's a fallacy is that the difference between a Cat with four legs and a Cat with more or less than four legs is "Genetic abnormality" or a deficiency of some sort.  While the difference between a snake that is venomous and a snake that is not is a difference in species.  Certain species of Snake have venom and certain Species of Snake do not. 
        b.  Your attempt to compare these two things that are unlike one another is the fundamental problem that creates the fallacy because no matter how you present the idea that they can be compared...it makes no logical sense.

    2. If an idea is based on a fact, then ideas can be objective.
        a.  The idea that if your idea is aligned with a fact then your idea becomes a fact is a fallacy.  An idea or opinion does not become fact simply because it is aligned with a fact.  your opinion or idea may be factually based and they can be founded upon facts but they are not synonymous and they are not one and the same.  There is no reference that will support this idea and you cannot logically deduce that they are the same.

    Coveny said:
    So tell me what objective "facts" to do you have for the classification "white" that turns it from a subjective (visual) to an objective (visual)?

    Color, as in the frequency spectrum and intensity of photons reflected (or emitted) by an object is objective and can be measured by a machine.  Color measurement is a science, quantifiable and precise with the use of a spectrophotometer and has long been an established and indisputable method for determining the color of objects...including skin.  This is an "Objective fact", which I believe you asked for.

    https://www.astm.org/SNEWS/APRIL_2004/color_apr04.html

    I Hope this helped.




  • CovenyCoveny 378 Pts
    @Vaulk personal opinions does not equal opinions. 
    Opinion: A view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
    You can have objective opinions based on facts.

    Ah so your not saying my logic is faulty in general just when I referenced cat's with three legs. Ok sure. Let's change it to a frog then, and use four legs, two legs, fins, gills, water only and amphibious

    https://www.cuteness.com/article/four-stages-frogs-life-cycle

    I was just looking for visual differences within the same species, and you are correct three legs is considered an abnormality. I concede that point, but not the arguement

    Ok now lets get to your logical fallacy.
    My statement is Ideas can be based on facts means that ideas can be objective
    If facts are objective, and ideas can be based on facts then logically ideas can be objective. 

    You challenge this because you say ideas and facts can not be synonymous. Again I will use the visual of white. My idea of a white person is that they are white, and the fact is that they are white. The idea of the person and the facts are exactly the same in this case. This supports my claim. My claim is that facts and ideas can overlap in that an some ideas can be facts but being an idea does not mean that it's a fact any more than being a fact does not mean that it is an idea. You can not have it where the visual color of someone is both subjective and objective. So both the idea of a white person and the fact that they are white is either subjective or objective. I really don't care which you pick. Idea and fact are not mutually exclusive, you present a false dichotomy logical fallacy. 
  • VaulkVaulk 242 Pts
    @Coveny

    We're going in circles here but:

    Objective: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/objective

    By definition, something that is objective excludes opinions because objectivity is "Not influenced by personal feelings *Or Opinions* and representing facts".  You can say that your opinion is objective, "My opinion is objective"...that doesn't make it true.  This is an oxymoron, the statement contradicts itself because of the established meaning of the words used in the statement.

    So no, you can not have an objective opinion because objectivity *Requires* the absence of influence by an opinion.  This is logically sound.  Now, you can in fact have opinions based upon facts, meaning that you developed your idea or opinion partially, largely, mostly or completely upon facts.  The fact still remains that your opinion originates from within your mind and therefore is subjective by design and definition.

    The Oxford Dictionary also includes that Subjective is: Dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/subjective

    An individual opinion requires the mind of an individual and their perception for its existence.  If you cease to exist, your individual opinion also ceases to exist...regardless of how much fact it was based upon.  Ergo, your opinions are subjective but can in fact be *Based* on facts which are Objective and do not require the individual mind or perception for their existence.

    A "Fact" cannot be changed.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fact

    An "Opinion" can be changed.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/opinion

    Opinions cannot be facts, because they can be changed while facts remain the same.

    Your opinion can align with a fact.  It is a matter of choice.
    Facts cannot align with an opinion.  Facts are immovable.  If anyone believes that a fact aligns with their opinion, the case is actually that their opinion aligns with a fact.

    Objectivity is: The quality of being objective
    Qualities of being objective are: No influence by personal feelings, no influence by opinion, must represent facts.


    “Opinion: statement of belief or feeling. It shows one’s feelings about a subject. Solid opinions, while based on facts, are someone’s views on a subject and not facts themselves.”

    http://www.philosophersmag.com/index.php/tpm-mag-articles/11-essays/26-the-fact-opinion-distinction


    To summarize again, you cannot have objective opinions because opinions are statements of belief and belief is subjective regardless of why you believe.  Just because you believe in a fact, that does not make your belief a fact itself.







  • VaulkVaulk 242 Pts
    edited May 5
    And @coveny,

    Just because you maintain an idea of White, that doesn't mean your idea and the facts of color are one an the same.  An idea is independent thought, facts are not subject to independent thought.  Facts and ideas are not exactly the same in any case no matter how you spin it.  You can align an idea to a fact but not a fact to an idea...this creates a distinction between facts and ideas that cannot be blurred.

    Ideas cannot be facts, you have only to look at the meaning of the words to know it. 
    Source:
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fact
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/idea

    This argument is academic, there should be no contesting that this is true.  It's sounding more and more like a bunch of opinions trying to ride along side the facts as if they're the same thing.

  • CovenyCoveny 378 Pts
    @Vaulk at this point you are just being difficult to be difficult. You said "opinion can align with a fact" but "facts cannot align with an opinion" I mean really? I can see you do not wish to actually debate this you'll just say whatever you need to say not to "lose", so I'm going to stop responding to you on this and leave comment in parting for you to have fun with: 

    Race is not needed, has no value, and causes nothing but harm. It is a way to divide the human race into smaller groups which, given the human mind, creates a tendency to form an us vs them mentality. The use of race should end.
  • agsragsr 540 PtsPremium MemberTechnology Community Moderator
    Premium MemberTechnology Community Moderator
    @Coveny, I think you just articulated the vision that Gene Rodenberry tried to articulate with StarTrek.  I guess we are all sufficiently different in microcasm, until we are introduced to creatures that are even more different, which makes our original differences pale in comparison.  :)
    Covenylove2debate
    Live Long and Prosper
  • VaulkVaulk 242 Pts
    @ coveny, I accept your concession.
    Coveny
  • Because we're back to talking about Muslims and Mexicans as if they're a race of people...back to the top of the page with you.
    northsouthkorea
  • @Vaulk , you have made some great arguments!

    I believe that they are races of cultures. They can not be classified as minority’s due to their large global and American population.
  • @northsouthkorea,

    I'm not sure I understand your response, are you saying that Muslims and Mexicans are types of races that belong to a larger culture and subsequently each Culture has it's own race or races?
    billpassed
  • billpassedbillpassed 62 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Vaulk , Muslims and Hispanics are both large races, but are coming from different cultures.
  • WakeWake 3 Pts
    Before you can identify a race or not you have to define what a race is. Arguing that place of origin isn't worthy is preposterous. ALL of the human race originated in Africa but everyone knows what you're talking about if you say "African". We also know what is meant when we say Japanese or Chinese or Indian or American Indian.

    "White" people are from northwestern Europe. Latinos are largely Spanish/Portuguese or mixed Central or South American natives that speak Spanish or some mixture of it.

    Middle Easterners are a race if not a very distinct one. Slavs another. 

    But in any case aren't we all of the human species. Should anything else matter save for historic research?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch