The Texas anti-abortion law is racist - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.









The Texas anti-abortion law is racist

Debate Information

1. There is no prohibition from people going out of state to get the medical care that they need.
2. Some people can't afford to go to a pro-abortion jurisdiction. Some people can.
3. In Texas, median hourly wages for black workers have barely budged since 2000, holding at about $15 an hour, even as white workers’ median wage rose 13 percent to $21.67 in 2017 from $19.14 in 2000.With poverty rates twice as high as those for white Texans, people of colour are disproportionately burdened by poverty, with Hispanics making up more than half of the state's poor population even though they're far from the majority of the state's population.
4. Therefore, people of colour are less affluent and have more trouble affording the costs of going out of jurisdiction for the medical care that they are being refused in Texas.


OakTownAexconTorsten
«13456



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1647 Pts   -  
    Where is race mentioned in the Texas abortion law?
  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 286 Pts   -  
    While I agree that the law is bad, I don't feel in any way that it is targeting other races. They have already restricted abortion anyways, so I doubt this new law is any different.
    Plaffelvohfen
    "I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -  
    The fact that a law disproportionally affects people of one group does not make it discriminatory against that group. It is only discriminatory if it explicitly inflicts penalties on that group that other groups do not suffer. A poor white woman is just as affected by this law as a poor black woman, and the fact that a black woman is more likely statistically to be poor than a white woman does not change anything.
    PlaffelvohfenDebater123
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 888 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    So your accusation is anything that costs money is racist?
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 9
    @Blastcat

    So your accusation is anything that costs money is racist?

    Nope. I didn't say that, and I don't mean that.

    I'm talking about the Texas Heartbeat Act. I say that the consequences of that Act harms women of colour more than white women. White women are more affluent and can afford to get the medical care that they need out of state.
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 9
    CYDdharta said:
    Where is race mentioned in the Texas abortion law?

    I didn't say that the word race is mentioned in the Texas abortion law. In my argument, i make a case that the law attacks women of colour disproportionately, because women of colour in Texas are less affluent than the white women in Texas.
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 9
    MayCaesar said:
    The fact that a law disproportionally affects people of one group does not make it discriminatory against that group. It is only discriminatory if it explicitly inflicts penalties on that group that other groups do not suffer. A poor white woman is just as affected by this law as a poor black woman, and the fact that a black woman is more likely statistically to be poor than a white woman does not change anything.

    Yes, poor women are being attacked more than affluent women who can afford to take off work and get out of state to get the medical care that they need. On average, women of colour are less affluent than white women. So it attacks poor women, and a disporportionate amount of coloured women in Texas make less money, and can't take off for a medical procedure whenever they like because they don't have the high paying jobs that allow for that kind of thing. Low paying jobs tend to have less medical benefits than higher paying jobs.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 888 Pts   -   edited September 9
    @Blastcat

    But your reasoning would apply to anything that costs money.
    ...white women are more affluent so minority would have a harder time affording things.

    Let me ask you what would make it not racist? Is medical care supposed to adjust what they charge you based upon the average wealth of your identified race?  I'd find that far more racist.
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  
    Luigi7255 said:
    While I agree that the law is bad, I don't feel in any way that it is targeting other races. They have already restricted abortion anyways, so I doubt this new law is any different.

    You don't feel that way.
    ok.

    I guess my argument didn't convince you.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2769 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    I do find that law abhorrent in many regards, but MayCaesar gave the best argument here in my opinion... Unless you can demonstrate either explicit or implicit intentionality (to specifically target people of colour), it is incorrect to label this law as racist...  You don't have to like it (I don't) but it's a fact we just can't dismiss and still claim to argue in good faith about it...
    Debater123
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    I do find that law abhorrent in many regards, but MayCaesar gave the best argument here in my opinion... Unless you can demonstrate either explicit or implicit intentionality (to specifically target people of colour), it is incorrect to label this law as racist...  You don't have to like it (I don't) but it's a fact we just can't dismiss and still claim to argue in good faith about it...

    So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that a law that affects women of colour disproportionately isn't racist in your opinion. Is that your idea?
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 9
    @Blastcat

    But your reasoning would apply to anything that costs money.
    ...white women are more affluent so minority would have a harder time affording things.

    Let me ask you what would make it not racist? Is medical care supposed to adjust what they charge you based upon the average wealth of your identified race?  I'd find that far more racist.

    Nope, that's not what I mean at all.
    Texas passes a law that prohibits abortions.

    Affluent people aren't affected by that law as much as poor people. Since there are more people of colour who are poor in Texas ( one reason is that they don't get payed as much, as I stated in the main argument, the law affects people of colour more.

    Im not talking about what kind of car they can buy. Im talking about medical care out of Texas. It costs money to travel to somewhere where they can have safe medical care. And it also takes some time off.. lots of poor people have jobs where if they leave for a medical procedure, they lose their job. Especially when the boss only pays 15 an hour. We are talking about low level jobs here as opposed to higher paying jobs. White people average from 20 to 26 dollars an hour in Texas. For the coloured people, it's been 15 for decades. But it's worse if you don't even have a job. In Texas, whites have an unemployment rate of about 5%, blacks are at 11%, Hispanics are at 8%. For women of colour, who are out of a job and pregnant, the problem they face is disproportionately larger than for the whites. Whites in Texas out of a job might have more savings to save for the trip. 

    With the new law, women will have to travel 496 miles round trip, on average, to get an abortion out-of-state, assuming that most or all abortion clinics within Texas will close as a result of the law.

    For someone earning the state’s minimum wage, $7.25 an hour, the trip to an out-of-state abortion clinic would cost them a day’s worth of pay, according to Guttmacher Institute’s research. These women might also have to arrange for childcare while they are gone. The average annual salary in Texas is around 62,000. while at the minimum wage, the total salary is 15,00.


    So, to further our conversation, i'd like to ask you two questions now:

    1. Do you believe that there is racism in Texas?
    2. Do you think it's easier or harder to get out of state medical care when someone is getting 15 as opposed to 21 dollars an hour pay?





  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 888 Pts   -   edited September 9
    @Blastcat

    Your contention is still that the law is racist solely because minorities on average make less.  Like maycaesar said the law doesn't include or exclude any particular group.  Your argument can therefore be applied to anything that costs money. In fact, with your logic, I could make the same contention that when abortion was legal, it was racist because black individuals would be less likely to afford it. I mean if one makes $20 and the other 15, who would be able to afford it more easily?

    Now to your questions.
    1. You'll have to be more specific.  I don't believe there are racist laws in Texas, unless of course you can show one that includes or excludes based in race. You may be able to find a few racist individuals as you can anywhere.

    2. It's no more difficult than it is for either individual to buy any other consumer product. How people use their money isn't up to me, but obviously rich people have more options than poor people. As long as the good is priced the same, the law/circumstance cannot be racist.

    Also I'm not sure why people always think inequity implies inequality; it's quite baffling. Why would a business choose one person over the other, expertise, cost, professionalism, experience, desperation, ect. Your doesn't show that any business is instituting discriminatory practices. Show me the evidence the resulting unemployment of blacks is a result of them being black.
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 9
    @Blastcat

    Your contention is still that the law is racist solely because minorities on average make less.  Like maycaesar said the law doesn't include or exclude any particular group.  Your argument can therefore be applied to anything that costs money. 

    Now to your questions.
    1. You'll have to be more specific.  I don't believe there are racist laws in Texas, unless of course you can show one that includes or excludes based in race. You may be able to find a few racist individuals as you can anywhere.

    2. It's no more difficult than it is for either individual to buy any other consumer product. How people use their money isn't up to me, but obviously rich people have more options than poor people. As long as the good is priced the same, the law/circumstance cannot be racist.

    Yes, you got it. People of colour make less. Their unemployment rate is twice as high. People of colour a particular group, even in Texas.

    I wasn't asking about racist laws.. I was asking about racism in general. You say that there are "a few" racists in Texas. Im going to predicts that you aren't a person of colour. Is that correct? You aren't being treated unfairly because of your race very often?

    So, we agree that more affluent people have an easier time going out of state to get a safe, legal abortion, than a poor person. I think that's progress.
    Do you accept that people of colour make less money on average in Texas than white people and would find the 435 mile trip to get an abortion more onerous than for white people ( again, on average )

    You say that as long as the good is being sold at the same price to anyone, it can't be racist. In Texas, right now, there is no GOODS to be sold. People have to go over 400 miles to get an abortion out of state to get those "goods". The consequence of this law affects people ( Lets face it, it's mostly the women) of colour disproportionately.

    A law that makes the burden of getting an abortion worse for a certain race, is racist.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 888 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    Got it.  So you do believe inequity is the same as inequality.  If all races don't have the same statistics across all areas of life, there is racism. 
    Your contention is if any race is effected by a law more than another it is racist.  So because blacks commit violent crime more often than whites, are laws against violence racist?

    Let me ask a couple questions on this specific law.

    1. If an abortion before the law in Texas cost $100, is that racist because whites would be more likely to afford it.

    2. If your contention is it's only racist because abortion is now illegal but can be purchased in other states.
    Do you think marijuana laws are racist? You can purchase it in one state but not another.  
    Your argument applies to any and all products that are available in one area in the world and not another.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2769 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    Suppose the exact same law, is implemented in an imaginary country named Whiteopia (where there is no people of colour at all, they're all inbreds), could you still rationally label it a racist law? No...  But it would still be a sexist law, still be an outrageous infringement on basic human rights, would still be theocratic in nature and thus antithetical to modern democratic principles...

    Now, take another law that states "It is illegal for asian individuals to drive a car"... It wouldn't matter where this law is implemented, even in Whiteopia, it would still be rational to label that law as racist... 

    It's not the Bill that is racist, it's the system that produces these disproportionate results that is, hence systemic racism... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 9
    @Blastcat

    Suppose the exact same law, is implemented in an imaginary country named Whiteopia (where there is no people of colour at all, they're all inbreds), could you still rationally label it a racist law? No...  But it would still be a sexist law, still be an outrageous infringement on basic human rights, would still be theocratic in nature and thus antithetical to modern democratic principles...

    Now, take another law that states "It is illegal for asian individuals to drive a car"... It wouldn't matter where this law is implemented, even in Whiteopia, it would still be rational to label that law as racist... 

    It's not the Bill that is racist, it's the system that produces these disproportionate results that is, hence systemic racism... 

    There has to be at least two races to have racism so your Whiteopia example doesn't work.
    If you really don't think that a law that disproportionately hurts people of colour is racist, maybe we aren't using the word racist to mean the same thing.

    The law does affect all women in Texas who want a safe and legal abortion, but it affects the women of colour more than the white women. White women, on average have more money to burn on the trip that Texas is forcing them to take. if the pro-life people get their way, women will have to get out of the USA in order to get the medical care that they require. That would cost much more than it does now, and harms black women more than white. Sorry to say, but in Texas, the odds are stacked for the whites. This law is just another example of systemic racism ( It's also a lot more than that. It's an attack on women, on democracy and so on, but we are talking about race right now )

    You say that it's "the system".. that causes black women to have less money than the whites. Must be those few racists you say exist in Texas rigging the system.
    In Texas, the state government is the biggest system and has the most power.

    Do you believe that the state government has nothing to do with the system.
    It can and does pass laws that affect the system. This law affects the system in such a way as to affect women of colour more negatively than the whites. If there is systemic racism in Texas, the "system" as you call it.. The law does nothing to help those poor women.

    I am pro-life and pro-basic human rights, so I think Texas should take care of everyone when it comes to medical issues.
    To refuse medical care is just wrong.

    To do so for Christian reasons is even more ghastly.
    The Christians are in agreement with the Taliban on the issue of abortion. I don't know about you, but I don't consider the Taliban's "system" very good as to when it comes to treating women with fairness and compassion.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2769 Pts   -   edited September 9
    @Blastcat

    The point I was trying to make you understand is that "disproportionately affects people of colour" does not mean it's racist... 

    Diabetes is 60% more common in black Americans than in white Americans. Blacks are up to 2.5 times more likely to suffer a limb amputation and up to 5.6 times more likely to suffer kidney disease than other people with diabetes... Since diabetes "disproportionately affects people of colour" I guess you would have to also affirm that diabetes is racist, correct?

    And you would have to say the same about sarcoidosis too, as this disease is 16x more deadly among blacks than among whites, so sarcoidosis is therefore racist correct? 

    You and I both should know that it's absurd to label diabetes as racist... Yet it does "disproportionately affects people of colour"... I'll repeat because it does need repeating: it's not the Bill that is racist, it's the system that repeatedly produces these disproportionate results that is, hence systemic racism... You won't solve anything if you focus only on single issues that "disproportionately affects people of colour", you're missing the mark, which is the system itself... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @MayCaesar

    The fact that a law disproportionally affects people of one group does not make it discriminatory against that group. It is only discriminatory if it explicitly inflicts penalties on that group that other groups do not suffer. A poor white woman is just as affected by this law as a poor black woman, and the fact that a black woman is more likely statistically to be poor than a white woman does not change anything.

    That means the prejudice is by fact against couples who have children by having copulation, it is these couples who are asked to admit to a crime by allowing a description that describes an explicit order to stop life as a medical procedure. Being told to admit a crime that has no limitation of prosecution by law is an inflicted penalty. 
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1647 Pts   -  
    Blastcat said:

    I didn't say that the word race is mentioned in the Texas abortion law. In my argument, i make a case that the law attacks women of colour disproportionately, because women of colour in Texas are less affluent than the white women in Texas.
    ...then it isn't racist.  
  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -   edited September 10
    No it’s not , it’s a regressive , ghastly piece of legislation which denies women the right to bodily autonomy yet grants the unborn a right that supecerdes the rights of a citizen 

    When this law was  being made skin colour did not come into the equation and it’s not very helpful bringing it into it  now , race is constantly used as a tactic now to instantly shut down debate on such matters 

    Incidentally you claim  it affects blacks more than those of other colours yet Hispanics are the lowest paid from what I’ve read it’s you who are demonstrating racist bias as your singling out how it affects blacks alone and have not once mentioned the many low paid whites , Hispanics etc ,etc. who are on minimun wage 

    Which is an appalling ……7:25 an hour ……….Texas adopts the federal minimum wage rate. Effective July 24, 2009, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour

    That’s institutional abuse against all the lowest paid in society and totally approved of and encouraged in the US , several on here think that such a wage is entirely just and can secure the necessities of life if one is “prudent” 


    Incidentally if a black person was intent on getting an abortion are you seriously saying the additional cost of getting one in the next state would be this decisive in her decision?

    If a law is passed and the price of petrol goes up in Texas is that also racist as it affects more blacks than whites ?

    You’re mixing two separate issues and coming to false conclusions based on such 
  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    If you really don't think that a law that disproportionately hurts people of colour is racist, maybe we aren't using the word racist to mean the same thing.

    Yet Hispanics I’m reading are the lowest paid in Texas and everyone in Texas  is paid a lower wage compared to 24 other states in the US so is the entire State of Texas suffering racism ?

    So the law in Texas if I were to use your reasoning is most racist against Hispanics , then blacks , then others?

    Why not tackle wage issues as a separate issue ? Because low income affects people of colour why do you separate these into categories? Did you actually ever see how many whites also suffer under dreadful minimun wage conditions why is your only concern black workers ? Not once have you mentioned Hispanics or whites why’s that? 

    Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    A law that makes the burden of getting an abortion worse for a certain race, is racist.

    Your use of language is disengenous to say the least , here is what you’re really saying …..

    A law that makes the cost  of getting an abortion worse for a certain race, is racist…….

    No it’s not as it’s not aimed at a certain race it’s aimed at a specific gender as in women , it may be in my opinion unfair,  it’s certainly not racist unless you wish to hold it deliberately targets blacks and no one else, is that your contention?

    Segregation laws in the US were racist as they made it very clear as to who they were aimed at and there was absolutely no doubt as to who they were aimed at 

    Stop seeing race in a situation where it’s not there its unhelpful 

    Plaffelvohfen
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 10
    Dee said:
    @Blastcat

    A law that makes the burden of getting an abortion worse for a certain race, is racist.

    Your use of language is disengenous to say the least , here is what you’re really saying …..

    A law that makes the cost  of getting an abortion worse for a certain race, is racist…….

    No it’s not as it’s not aimed at a certain race it’s aimed at a specific gender as in women , it may be in my opinion unfair,  it’s certainly not racist unless you wish to hold it deliberately targets blacks and no one else, is that your contention?

    Segregation laws in the US were racist as they made it very clear as to who they were aimed at and there was absolutely no doubt as to who they were aimed at 

    Stop seeing race in a situation where it’s not there its unhelpful 


    Well of course the cost is what is prohibitive to some people. The Texas law isn't going to stop women from getting abortions.. it just means that these women have to leave the state for their medical needs. I wont repeat this again.

    When you increase the price from NOTHING to hundreds of dollars for an out of state trip to get an abortion, not to mention child care costs and time off work, this impacts the poor women of Texas.. and as I said in the main argument, poor women in Texas have a high probability of being coloured. The consequence of this law is that it impacts people of colour more than white people.

    The law does not include racist LANGUAGE.. it has racist consequences. It's the same with voter repression laws in certain states. They impact people of colour more than the whites, even though, there is no racial language in those laws.

    You forget that a law can target people of colour without ever using racist language.

    As to deliberately targets blacks and no one else, that is not my contention. It attacks all women in Texas who wants a safe, legal abortion in state.. near where they live. My repeated contention is that people of colour have less money, and the burden of going out of state to get an abortion is more onerous on these women.

    It affects women of colour disproportionately, in other words "Hurts the coloured people more than the whites".

  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -   edited September 10
    @Blastcat

    well of course the cost is what is prohibitive to some people. The Texas law isn't going to stop women from getting abortions.. it just means that these women have to leave the state for their medical needs. I wont repeat this again. 

    The cost is the same to all people in Texas therefore is not racist 

    When you increase the price from NOTHING to hundreds of dollars for an out of state trip to get an abortion, not to mention child care costs and time off work, this impacts the poor women of Texas..

    Yes which is not just black people but all women of Texas intent on getting an abortion 

     and as I said in the main argument, poor women in Texas have a high probability of being coloured. The consequence of this law is that it impacts people of colour more than white people. 


    Wait you clearly said blacks now it’s people of colour which includes whites , blacks , Hispanics 

    The law does not include racist LANGUAGE.. it has racist consequences. 

    Nonsense that’s merely you projecting and seeing race in a situation where it not , it does not deliberately target , colour or the poor it targets women of all colour, creed and income levels 

    It's the same with voter repression laws in certain states. They impact people of colour more than the whites, even though, there is no racial language in those laws. 

    I don’t know about these and I’m not taking your word for it until I do independent research and it’s a different debate 

    You forget that a law can target people of colour without ever using racist language.

    This is not one it’s a case of you projecting race onto a law that is no way racist , are rent raises racist because they affect coloured more than whites?
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 10
    CYDdharta said:
    Blastcat said:

    I didn't say that the word race is mentioned in the Texas abortion law. In my argument, i make a case that the law attacks women of colour disproportionately, because women of colour in Texas are less affluent than the white women in Texas.
    ...then it isn't racist.  

    It affects women of colour more than white women because it exploits a systemic racism that has the consequence that people of colour can't make as much money than the white people in that state. . but it's not "racist".
    Im getting a lot of that in here.

    You see to think that if there isn't racist language in a law, that it can't have racist effects. I never say that there is racist LANGUAGE in the bill.. I say that the law has a racist EFFECT. The lawmakers know exactly what consequence their law is likely to have ... that's what lawmakers do. And if a lawmaker doesn't know the consequences of a law, that lawmaker is incompetent, derelict in her duties to protect everyone in the state EQUALLY.

    A law that targets people of colour disproportionately, isn't treating everyone equally. It's bad for all women who want an abortion, but it's worse for the black women.
    DeeCYDdharta
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 10

    " The point I was trying to make you understand is that "disproportionately affects people of colour" does not mean it's racist... "

    it's a lousy point.

    The law attacks all women who want to get a safe, legal abortion close to their homes. It affects women of colour more than the white women.

    Women of colour, as we know, have less money for the expense. If they live from pay check to pay check and have very little in the way of savings, they can't just go "dip in" their bank account.  I don't know if you understand how poverty works.

    The law can't stop a woman from travelling out of state for an abortion.. yet. But travel makes it even harder for a coloured woman who is,. on average, less able to afford it. Of course, this being a Republican law, the rich dont have much trouble with it. A small trip wont affect their bank accounts very much.

    The poor women are the ones who have the trouble. The law forces women to go out of state... forces. The law isn't fair because not everyone can afford the expenses equally. The poor are affected to a greater extent than the rich or even affluent.13.6 percent of Texas's population lived below the poverty line in 2019. That's
    3,770. 000 people who are under the poverty line. That's 3 million people struggling each and every day to make ends meet.

    The government is targeting these people, and in Texas, those living under the poverty line are only about 8% are white. The rest of those 3 million are of colour.








    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2769 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    Diabetes is 60% more common in black Americans than in white Americans. Blacks are up to 2.5 times more likely to suffer a limb amputation and up to 5.6 times more likely to suffer kidney disease than other people with diabetes... Since diabetes "disproportionately affects people of colour" I guess you would have to also affirm that diabetes is racist, correct?

    And you would have to say the same about sarcoidosis too, as this disease is 16x more deadly among blacks than among whites, so sarcoidosis is therefore racist correct? 

    Does that make any sense to you, if not, why?
    DeeMayCaesar
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    The law attacks all women who want to get a safe, legal abortion close to their homes. It affects women of colour more than the white women. 

    The anti drug laws affect all women who want to use  drugs it affects women of colour more than white women so laws outlawing drugs are racist as people of colour are being denied the right to spend their money when  and how they wish 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 10
    @Blastcat

    Diabetes is 60% more common in black Americans than in white Americans. Blacks are up to 2.5 times more likely to suffer a limb amputation and up to 5.6 times more likely to suffer kidney disease than other people with diabetes... Since diabetes "disproportionately affects people of colour" I guess you would have to also affirm that diabetes is racist, correct?

    And you would have to say the same about sarcoidosis too, as this disease is 16x more deadly among blacks than among whites, so sarcoidosis is therefore racist correct? 

    Does that make any sense to you, if not, why?

    It doesn't make sense to me.
    Diabetes doesn't have a mind. Does not care about the race. Can't care. We are talking about human behaviour.
    Same thing with covid.. It attacks whoever it can. Doesn't have a mind, cant be racist.

    We aren't talking about the butterflies, either.
    I was talking about a Texas law.

    Maybe you forget the conclusion to my argument : " Therefore, people of colour are less affluent and have more trouble affording the costs of going out of jurisdiction for the medical care that they are being refused in Texas."

    That's what I am talking about. I don't contend that a disease that affects people of colour disproportionately can be racist. Maybe you are using a strange definition of the word "racist" here.


  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 10
    Dee said:
    @Blastcat

    The law attacks all women who want to get a safe, legal abortion close to their homes. It affects women of colour more than the white women. 

    The anti drug laws affect all women who want to use  drugs it affects women of colour more than white women so laws outlawing drugs are racist as people of colour are being denied the right to spend their money when  and how they wish 

    You seem to be making a case against drug laws.
    right now, we are talking about the texas law prohibiting abortions. But you are right that anti-drug laws affects the poor more than the affluent or the rich. There is systemic racism in the USA.

    I think that you are arguing that the word racist cannot apply to the law.
    You seem to think that a law has to have racist language in order for it to have racist effects. That's not true. The Texas law affects poor women more than rich women, obviously.

    There are more poor women of colour than poor women who are white. The consequence of this law is that it affects women of colour more than the women who are white. In other words, the law attacks black women more than white women.

  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 888 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    "The consequence of this law is that it affects women of colour more than the women who are white. In other words, the law attacks black women more than white women."

    If blacks commit violent crime more often than whites, are laws against violence racist?

    If your contention is it's only racist because abortion is now illegal but can be purchased in other states.
    Do you think marijuana laws are racist? 
    Your argument applies to any and all products that are illegal in one area of the world but not another.

    If your answer is no why not.

  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 10
    Dee said:
    @Blastcat

    If you really don't think that a law that disproportionately hurts people of colour is racist, maybe we aren't using the word racist to mean the same thing.

    Yet Hispanics I’m reading are the lowest paid in Texas and everyone in Texas  is paid a lower wage compared to 24 other states in the US so is the entire State of Texas suffering racism ?

    So the law in Texas if I were to use your reasoning is most racist against Hispanics , then blacks , then others?

    Why not tackle wage issues as a separate issue ? Because low income affects people of colour why do you separate these into categories? Did you actually ever see how many whites also suffer under dreadful minimun wage conditions why is your only concern black workers ? Not once have you mentioned Hispanics or whites why’s that? 


    Just because life is harder in Texas if you are a person of colour does not imply that the whole State is racist.

    Yes, my point is that the law attacks the poorest people in Texas, as you say, Hispanics, blacks, then others.
    It has a less negative impact on the whites.

    I've never said that white people in Texas can't be poor, but we know that more people of colour are poor than the whites. I don't have to mention the actual colours. I use "people of colour", because there is more than one "colour". And by "people of colour" I mean to exclude the whites.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2769 Pts   -   edited September 10
    @Blastcat
    It doesn't make sense to me.
    Diabetes doesn't have a mind. Does not care about the race. Can't care. We are talking about human behaviour.
    Same thing with covid.. It attacks whoever it can. Doesn't have a mind, cant be racist. 
    Good, we agree, a disease doesn't have a mind thus cannot be racist... A law doesn't have a mind either... Which would lead us to the lawmakers' mind right? Surely they have intent, I agree... 

    So all anyone has to do, is demonstrate either explicit or implicit intentionality of the lawmakers (to specifically target people of colour)...  Can you do that demonstration?

    An appeal to consequences does not say anything about intentions, just saying... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    "The consequence of this law is that it affects women of colour more than the women who are white. In other words, the law attacks black women more than white women."

    If blacks commit violent crime more often than whites, are laws against violence racist?

    If your contention is it's only racist because abortion is now illegal but can be purchased in other states.
    Do you think marijuana laws are racist? 
    Your argument applies to any and all products that are illegal in one area of the world but not another.

    If your answer is no why not.


    We are talking about the abortion law right now, but yes, I do believe that the prohibition of pot is a racist policy. It negatively impacts people of colour a lot more than the whites. We know that there is systemic racism in America, and for sure, in the south. In some cases, the voter suppression laws are also racist if they prevent more people of colour from voting. Most of the voter suppression attacks people who want to vote Democrat.. a whole lot of black people vote for Democrats.

    But lets try to keep to the actual topic, which is the Texas law attacking a woman's access to safe legal abortions. I don't think you understand that when a person is poor, paying more for a service hurts. I also don't think you understand that since people of colour are going to be disproportionately POOR due to systemic racism, they will have a tougher time paying for getting the medical care that they need.

    Im not sure if we are getting anywhere.
    It doesn't look as if I have convinced you, which is fine. I tried, which is even finer.

    You sure have not convinced me that my conclusion is wrong.
    I don't know how to make progress here, so, I'm happy to end our discussion.
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 10
    Blastcat said:

    It doesn't make sense to me.
    Diabetes doesn't have a mind. Does not care about the race. Can't care. We are talking about human behaviour.
    Same thing with covid.. It attacks whoever it can. Doesn't have a mind, cant be racist. 
    Good, a disease doesn't have a mind... A law doesn't have a mind either... Which would lead us to the lawmakers' mind right? Surely they can have intent, I agree... 

    So all anyone has to do, is demonstrate either explicit or implicit intentionality (to specifically target people of colour)...  Can you demonstrate intention? Consequences are not intentions btw...

    The law was passed by people who have minds and consequently, intentions.
    I can't read minds, so I wont be able to show "intent". Im not at all concerned with their intentions. Im concerned with the CONSEQUENCES of that law.

    Im happy to end our conversation.. it seems to be going nowhere.

  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -   edited September 10
    @Blastcat

    You seem to be making a case against drug laws. 

    You seem to be swerving 

    right now, we are talking about the texas law prohibiting abortions. 

    Right now I want you just to stick to your assertions which so far are not convincing 

    But you are right that anti-drug laws affects the poor more than the affluent or the rich. There is systemic racism in the USA. 

    So they are racist  to use your terminology that’s certainly a new slant , so  you are saying drug laws should be abolished because they affect coloureds more than whites , right? 

    There is no doubt racism in the US  but this is not a racist law , segregation was as I pointed out because it targeted blacks this does not,  you keep ignoring this point 

    I think that you are arguing that the word racist cannot apply to the law. 

    I never said that I gave a clear example of a now defunct racist law in the US it’s tragic you cannot tell the difference 
    This law targets all women no matter their level of income or circumstances you don’t seem to comprehend this as it totally destroys your teary eyed pleas of racism 

    You seem to think that a law has to have racist language in order for it to have racist effects. That's not true. The Texas law affects poor women more than rich women, obviously.

    ”racist affects “ is a ridiculous term not applicable in this case as this law is still about abortion not its affects on the poor , or coloured 

    Your contention is only the coloured poor count originally you said black until I corrected you now it’s coloured so white poor don’t matter racism only applies to coloured people …..seriously buddy are you for real or trolling?

    There are more poor women of colour than poor women who are white. The consequence of this law is that it affects women of colour more than the women who are white. In other words, the law attacks black women more than white women. 

    Any law that affects  poor whites is not racist then it’s only only if it affects a certain amount of coloured people it’s racist the figure of course decided by you as the amount of people affected makes it racist …….WOW ! 

    I’ve heard it all now , any law passed that introduce a high cost that affects coloureds only is racist , if it affects whites tough it’s not racist 
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 10

    You seem to be making a case against drug laws. 

    "You seem to be swerving "

    I don't know what that means.
    _____________________________

    right now, we are talking about the texas law prohibiting abortions. 

    " Right now I want you just to stick to your assertions which so far are not convincing "

    Im quite happy to end our discussion here. I tried to convince you and have failed.
    ______________________________

    But you are right that anti-drug laws affects the poor more than the affluent or the rich. There is systemic racism in the USA. 

    " So they are racist  to use your terminology that’s certainly a new slant , so  you are saying drug laws should be abolished because they affect coloureds more than whites , right?  "

    I said that laws against pot affects people of colour and poor people more than the affluent. We know that more coloured people are in jail over marijuana laws than whites are. The consequence of pot laws affects coloured people more than it does the whites.
    _________________

    " There is no doubt racism in the US  but this is not a racist law , segregation was as I pointed out because it targeted blacks this does not,  you keep ignoring this point "

    You don't think that the Texas law disproportionately affects women of colour. I tried to convince you that money matters, and you don't seem to accept that. So, as far as I'm concerned, you don't accept my claim that people of colour have less money than the whites on average to pay for the health care that Texas just took away from them.

    Ok, you don't accept that it's harder for a poor person to pay for an abortion in Texas. And that in Texas, people of colour are disproportionately poor. If you do accept these two premises, let me know. I don't think that you do.

    If you don't agree with those two premises, then I wont be able to convince you of my conclusion. My conclusion is based on those two premises.
    ________________________


    I think that you are arguing that the word racist cannot apply to the law. 

    " I never said that I gave a clear example of a now defunct racist law in the US it’s tragic you cannot tell the difference "

    If that's an important argument, you should spell it out. I must have missed it before.
    If you never said that the word racist cannot apply to the law, then are you saying that the word racist can be applied to the law?
    __________________________


    You seem to think that a law has to have racist language in order for it to have racist effects. That's not true. The Texas law affects poor women more than rich women, obviously.

    " ”racist affects “ is a ridiculous term not applicable in this case as this law is still about abortion not its affects on the poor , or coloured "

    You think that "racist effects" is a ridiculous term.
    You say that you aren't concerned about the EFFECTS of a law. I'm talking about the effects of the law.

    Since you aren't interested in those effects, I think we should end our conversation that concerns those effects.
    ___________________________

    There are more poor women of colour than poor women who are white. The consequence of this law is that it affects women of colour more than the women who are white. In other words, the law attacks black women more than white women. 

    " Any law that affects  poor whites is not racist then it’s only only if it affects a certain amount of coloured people it’s racist the figure of course decided by you as the amount of people affected makes it racist …….WOW ! 

    I’ve heard it all now , any law passed that introduce a high cost that affects coloureds only is racist , if it affects whites tough it’s not racist "

    You seem to think that if a law affects white people it can't be racist. Even though, I think I used the phrase "disproportionately" in most of my replies. Im happy to end. We aren't getting anywhere.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -   edited September 10
    Argument Topic: Deeper analysis

    @Blastcat

    First of all, I think you are confusing the term "racism" with the term "systemic racism", which are very different entities. "Systemic racism" is what Ayn Rand would call an anti-concept, as it replaces the reasonable concept of "racism" with something that sounds like it, yet has nothing in common with it.
    Racism is discrimination against individuals based on their race.
    Systemic racism is production or presence of statistically unequal outcomes between different racial groups.
    There can be many reasons having nothing to do with racism that lead to some racial groups outperforming other racial groups. It would be quite preposterous, for instance, to claim that Asians outperforming everyone else in mathematics is a result of discrimination against non-Asians in academia; if anything, the data shows that the opposite takes place, and some universities through affirmative action and quotas discriminate against Asians.
    As such, "systemic racism" is a concept completely unrelated to actual "racism", while you seem to be conflating the two.

    Now, let me give you two examples where the tables are turned and ask you whether you believe that they are racist against non-black people. One will be a non-political example, and another will be political.


    1. Let us take the running sports, in particular - running at the 100 m distance. This is what the typical competition at the top level looks like:



    Notice the color of these people's skin. The fact that they are all black is not a product of any particular policy on the organizers' end; there is no reason why, say, a Latino person cannot run among these guys, given similar ability, skill and performance. So the obvious question then is: why are all these people black? Well, for various reasons, historical, biological, geographical and otherwise, black people (especially black people from certain African countries, notably Ethiopia) tend to statistically outperform people of other races when it comes to running.

    Now, would it be correct that the 100 m run is a racist sport? It is hard for me to think of any half-reasonable argument in support of such a claim. A 100 m run is a sport in which everyone finds themselves in the same conditions, under the same rules. It does not even have to be limited to humans: a cheetah or a turtle can partake in the same competition. Racial disparity comes not from any racism present anywhere, but from certain natural facts independent of human action.


    2. Now, let us come back to politics and policies. Let us, again, take Texas and consider the federal progressive income taxation laws that apply to everyone in Texas. Are those laws racist? It is well known that the black population in Texas has an income distribution significantly skewed to the left compared to that of the white population. Hence, the white population pays disproportionally higher tax rates than the black population. Are, therefore, progressive income taxation laws racist against white people? Again, I cannot see any half-reasonable argument in support of the positive answer.

    Now, some people faced with this example would say, "It is precisely because white people are higher earners that they should pay higher tax rates". Okay, but this does not change the fact of this disparity. If you believe that different races being affected differently by a law is an instance of racism, then all you are doing with this argument is justifying a racist law, not refuting the claim that the law is racist. In actuality, however, the law is only "systemic-racist", in the sense defined above, and is not racist in any meaningful way.


    If you want a simple litmus test for a law or a rule being or not being racist, sexist or otherwise discriminatory, ask a simple question: "If there are two individuals that are equal in every relevant way, except for the characteristic in question (in our case, race), are they affected differently by this?" If the answer is "no", then the law/rule is not discriminatory. Otherwise, it is.

    Examples:

    a) Is a university rule allowing for admission only the people with the SAT score of above 1300 sexist?
    - No: a man and a woman with the same SAT score are affected exactly the same by this rule. The fact that men on average have higher SAT scores than women does not affect individual cases.

    b) Is a university rule setting a 20% quota on Asian admissions racist?
    - Yes: an Asian and a non-Asian person with the same other pertinent characteristics are affected differently by this rule. The fact that Asians on average are disproportionally admitted to universities compared to non-Asians does not affect individual cases.


    Let me know if anything here is unclear or questionable. :)
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2769 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat
    I can't read minds, so I wont be able to show "intent".
    One doesn't have to read minds to show intention, I could list you many Jim Crow laws that are explicitly racist and where intentionality is easily demonstrated, in this particular case we just CANNOT demonstrate racist intentions... That is all I'm saying...
     Im not at all concerned with their intentions. Im concerned with the CONSEQUENCES of that law.

    As you should be, but that's my point, if you're concerned with the consequences, focusing on labelling this law "racist", serves no purpose at all... It's like sending thoughts and prayers, you feel good and self-righteous but it's meaningless... 

    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 10
    MayCaesar said:
    @Blastcat

    First of all, I think you are confusing the term "racism" with the term "systemic racism", which are very different entities. "Systemic racism" is what Ayn Rand would call an anti-concept, as it replaces the reasonable concept of "racism" with something that sounds like it, yet has nothing in common with it.
    Racism is discrimination against individuals based on their race.
    Systemic racism is production or presence of statistically unequal outcomes between different racial groups.
    There can be many reasons having nothing to do with racism that lead to some racial groups outperforming other racial groups. It would be quite preposterous, for instance, to claim that Asians outperforming everyone else in mathematics is a result of discrimination against non-Asians in academia; if anything, the data shows that the opposite takes place, and some universities through affirmative action and quotas discriminate against Asians.
    As such, "systemic racism" is a concept completely unrelated to actual "racism", while you seem to be conflating the two.

    Now, let me give you two examples where the tables are turned and ask you whether you believe that they are racist against non-black people. One will be a non-political example, and another will be political.


    1. Let us take the running sports, in particular - running at the 100 m distance. This is what the typical competition at the top level looks like:



    Notice the color of these people's skin. The fact that they are all black is not a product of any particular policy on the organizers' end; there is no reason why, say, a Latino person cannot run among these guys, given similar ability, skill and performance. So the obvious question then is: why are all these people black? Well, for various reasons, historical, biological, geographical and otherwise, black people (especially black people from certain African countries, notably Ethiopia) tend to statistically outperform people of other races when it comes to running.

    Now, would it be correct that the 100 m run is a racist sport? It is hard for me to think of any half-reasonable argument in support of such a claim. A 100 m run is a sport in which everyone finds themselves in the same conditions, under the same rules. It does not even have to be limited to humans: a cheetah or a turtle can partake in the same competition. Racial disparity comes not from any racism present anywhere, but from certain natural facts independent of human action.


    2. Now, let us come back to politics and policies. Let us, again, take Texas and consider the federal progressive income taxation laws that apply to everyone in Texas. Are those laws racist? It is well known that the black population in Texas has an income distribution significantly skewed to the left compared to that of the white population. Hence, the white population pays disproportionally higher tax rates than the black population. Are, therefore, progressive income taxation laws racist against white people? Again, I cannot see any half-reasonable argument in support of the positive answer.

    Now, some people faced with this example would say, "It is precisely because white people are higher earners that they should pay higher tax rates". Okay, but this does not change the fact of this disparity. If you believe that different races being affected differently by a law is an instance of racism, then all you are doing with this argument is justifying a racist law, not refuting the claim that the law is racist. In actuality, however, the law is only "systemic-racist", in the sense defined above, and is not racist in any meaningful way.


    If you want a simple litmus test for a law or a rule being or not being racist, sexist or otherwise discriminatory, ask a simple question: "If there are two individuals that are equal in every relevant way, except for the characteristic in question (in our case, race), are they affected differently by this?" If the answer is "no", then the law/rule is not discriminatory. Otherwise, it is.

    Examples:

    a) Is a university rule allowing for admission only the people with the SAT score of above 1300 sexist?
    - No: a man and a woman with the same SAT score are affected exactly the same by this rule. The fact that men on average have higher SAT scores than women does not affect individual cases.

    b) Is a university rule setting a 20% quota on Asian admissions racist?
    - Yes: an Asian and a non-Asian people with the same other pertinent characteristics are affected differently by this rule. The fact that Asians on average are disproportionally admitted to universities compared to non-Asians does not affect individual cases.


    Let me know if anything here is unclear or questionable. :)

    Systemic racism has the effect of discrimination against individuals based on their race. Racism that isn't systemic also has that effect.

    In my argument, I conclude that the Texas Government added to the systemic racism in the state.

    I would say that the Texas Government just might be the most powerful system in the state of Texas, as it creates the laws. It could have chosen to help the poor women but have targeted them for harm. Affluent or rich people don't have as much of a burden going out of state to get the medical care that they need. The poor people, who tend to be disproportionately coloured people, find the prohibition way more economically difficult.

    As I stated in my argument, people of colour have less money than the whites. People of colour, therefore, have more of a burden if they want to get the medical help that they need.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    Diabetes is 60% more common in black Americans than in white Americans. Blacks are up to 2.5 times more likely to suffer a limb amputation and up to 5.6 times more likely to suffer kidney disease than other people with diabetes... Since diabetes "disproportionately affects people of colour" I guess you would have to also affirm that diabetes is racist, correct?

    And you would have to say the same about sarcoidosis too, as this disease is 16x more deadly among blacks than among whites, so sarcoidosis is therefore racist correct? 

    Does that make any sense to you, if not, why?
    Milk is also racist. Lactose intolerance is drastically higher among African-Americans and Asians than among northern Europeans most of whom are White.

    Milk is also produced and packaged by actual humans. So, I suppose, the farmers milking their cows must have a racist intent somewhere. A French serf milking his cow back in 1300-s certainly foresaw that one day white and black people would live together and have equal rights, so he nefariously produced milk instead of, say, beer to one day show those black people who is the boss!

    I am jesting right now, but this really is where Blastcat's reasoning leads if applied consistently. Whether racism presupposes or does not presuppose intent, then there is no other way to interpret the facts, if we assume that racism is about consequences and not intent.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Milk is also racist

    "I am jesting right now, but this really is where Blastcat's reasoning leads if applied consistently. "

    I don't think you understand my reasoning as it's spelled out in my argument.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -   edited September 10
    Blastcat said:

    Systemic racism has the effect of discrimination against individuals based on their race. Racism that isn't systemic also has that effect.

    In my argument, I conclude that the Texas Government added to the systemic racism in the state.

    I would say that the Texas Government just might be the most powerful system in the state of Texas, as it creates the laws. It could have chosen to help the poor women but have targeted them for harm. Affluent or rich people don't have as much of a burden going out of state to get the medical care that they need. The poor people, who tend to be disproportionately coloured people, find the prohibition way more economically difficult.

    As I stated in my argument, people of colour have less money than the whites. People of colour, therefore, have more of a burden if they want to get the medical help that they need.
    I am sorry, but you at all did not respond to my arguments that you quoted in your post. Could you clarify at which point in my line of reasoning the disagreement begins? My reasoning seems completely sound to me, as is its conclusion.

    And, perhaps, let me ask you a litmus question: do you believe that the 100 m run is a racist sport, discriminating against non-blacks? If no, then you agree with my reasoning, and your position on the Texas anti-abortion law is in error with it. If yes, then please explain why. It is a binary question, and has a binary answer.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 10
    @Blastcat
    I can't read minds, so I wont be able to show "intent".
    One doesn't have to read minds to show intention, I could list you many Jim Crow laws that are explicitly racist and where intentionality is easily demonstrated, in this particular case we just CANNOT demonstrate racist intentions... That is all I'm saying...
     Im not at all concerned with their intentions. Im concerned with the CONSEQUENCES of that law.

    As you should be, but that's my point, if you're concerned with the consequences, focusing on labelling this law "racist", serves no purpose at all... It's like sending thoughts and prayers, you feel good and self-righteous but it's meaningless... 


    So, we should be concerned with the consequences of a law. In my argument, I demonstrated that the Texas anti-abortion law affects people of colour disproportionately. By "disproportional" i mean to say that it affects MORE people of colour than it affects white people.

    I guess you want to carry on..
    Im more inclined to stop I don't think we are making any progress.

    I didn't convince you with my argument.
    Even after a long discussion, I have not convinced you.

    Im good with that.
  • @Dee
    No it’s not , it’s a regressive , ghastly piece of legislation which denies women the right to bodily autonomy yet grants the unborn a right that supecerdes the rights of a citizen 

    No, it doesn't it is an act of prejudice as it insists that a woman who has had sex with a man admit to murder to receive medical treatment. By your coaching, a woman is not asked to address the loss of privacy which has been placed in legal precedent by the supreme courts ruling from 1973 as a united state to all women who are to be created equal before the law.
    You are making a suggestion that a statement of control of a body will come by way of giving up patient privacy.

    Constitution pointed out a legal precedent as a danger to all women as a united state and the messenger of the truth constitutional states of the union are ignored. It is not too late for the states of the union to be made and held relevant to the legal precedent that obstructs them.
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 10
    John_C_87 said:
    @Dee
    No it’s not , it’s a regressive , ghastly piece of legislation which denies women the right to bodily autonomy yet grants the unborn a right that supecerdes the rights of a citizen 

    No, it doesn't it is an act of prejudice as it insists that a woman who has had sex with a man admit to murder to receive medical treatment. By your coaching, a woman is not asked to address the loss of privacy which has been placed in legal precedent by the supreme courts ruling from 1973 as a united state to all women who are to be created equal before the law.
    You are making a suggestion that a statement of control of a body will come by way of giving up patient privacy.

    Constitution pointed out a legal precedent as a danger to all women as a united state and the messenger of the truth constitutional states of the union are ignored. It is not too late for the states of the union to be made and held relevant to the legal precedent that obstructs them.


    Your religious views are irrelevant to my argument.
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 10
    MayCaesar said:
    Blastcat said:

    Systemic racism has the effect of discrimination against individuals based on their race. Racism that isn't systemic also has that effect.

    In my argument, I conclude that the Texas Government added to the systemic racism in the state.

    I would say that the Texas Government just might be the most powerful system in the state of Texas, as it creates the laws. It could have chosen to help the poor women but have targeted them for harm. Affluent or rich people don't have as much of a burden going out of state to get the medical care that they need. The poor people, who tend to be disproportionately coloured people, find the prohibition way more economically difficult.

    As I stated in my argument, people of colour have less money than the whites. People of colour, therefore, have more of a burden if they want to get the medical help that they need.
    I am sorry, but you at all did not respond to my arguments that you quoted in your post. Could you clarify at which point in my line of reasoning the disagreement begins? My reasoning seems completely sound to me, as is its conclusion.

    And, perhaps, let me ask you a litmus question: do you believe that the 100 m run is a racist sport, discriminating against non-blacks? If no, then you agree with my reasoning, and your position on the Texas anti-abortion law is in error with it. If yes, then please explain why. It is a binary question, and has a binary answer.

    Right, I was busy.
    It would be best if you could write one argument at a time. By the way, how many arguments did I miss?

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -   edited September 10
    @Blastcat

    Word "consequences" does not come into the definition of racism in any way. You may have a point when you say that the law in question disproportionally affects black women, and you could even from a certain moral perspective (which is absolutely abhorrent in my eyes, but not necessarily incoherent logically) argue that that in itself is a bad thing. That would be a sound argument.

    Calling it a "racist law", however, is not sound. Saying that a law is wrong because it disproportionally affects black woman would be a moral statement, which certainly has a merit. Saying that it is racist, on the other hand, is a factual statement, and in this case it happens to be objectively wrong.

    Also, I would really like you to give a comprehensive answer to my litmus question. Throughout this thread you have been avoiding direct questions of this kind. My guess is that it is because that would reveal your position as inconsistent, both to your opponents and to you - but I am happy to be proven wrong.
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 10
    Argument Topic: Racist races

    " And, perhaps, let me ask you a litmus question: do you believe that the 100 m run is a racist sport, discriminating against non-blacks? "


    No.
    In a race, the fastest person wins. If that means that no white people ever win those races, that's just the way that it is. When it comes to health issues, saying that people of colour should have a harder time is to me, racist. The government wont PAY for travelling out of state. Someone has to PAY for the trip.

    In Texas, women of colour have a harder time paying for stuff ( like trips to other states ) than white women.

    Jean
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch