ImmersiveAmbientModecolor: #d4d5d0 (color 2)
Video Format : 22 (720p) openh264 ( https://github.com/cisco/openh264) mp4a.40.2 | 44100Hz
Audio Format: Opus - Normalized audio
PokeTubeEncryptID: 5858ea328a196e94a4f0df15e1f834a1fa8f360c673214b45744db78fdd5aaa33af53ea5873f04d0e878d455447e8b37
Proxy : usa-proxy.poketube.fun - refresh the page to change the proxy location
Date : 1714619783380 - unknown on Apple WebKit
Mystery text : Uml6YlJnMnpsbGMgaSAgbG92ICB1IHVzYS1wcm94eS5wb2tldHViZS5mdW4=
143 : true
23,821 Views ⢠Jul 10, 2020 ⢠Click to toggle off description
Views : 23,821
Genre: Education
Date of upload: Jul 10, 2020 ^^
Rating : 4.944 (7/493 LTDR)
RYD date created : 2024-04-27T18:28:29.543168Z
See in json
YouTube Comments - 101 Comments
Top Comments of this video!! :3
For me, it boils down to this:
Enforced, involountary segregation is unjust. Involuntary is the key word because if one party wants this seperation they (though under the same law) are not forced in the same way: their wish has been granted. The opposing party, on the other hand, is controlled.
It's analogous to feeding my two kids the older brother's favourite meal every night. They are both constrained to eat the identical meal off the identical plate but this equality doesn't constitute justice but rather, consistent injustice. Who gets what they want and who is force-fed?
Seperate but equal breaks down on this view because, seperate itself is exactly what one party wants and what a second party is unjustly constrained to enact under threat.
(Probably the temptation in law is not to abandon justice for injustice but to abandon the reality of justice for the appearance of justice.)
21 |
I believe that in the Brownâs argument âinferiorâ does not mean âbe inferiorâ nor âbe stamped inferiorâ, but rather âperceive being stamped inferiorâ. Thatâs why the second sentence that Jeffry considers as irrelevant is important here.
So, the problem of the argument is not in equivocation but in unproven second statement. We donât know if white people in a society dominated by black people would consider be labeled as inferior or not by a segregation law.
5 |
I'm not a english native speaker, but I notice that in the phrase "acquiesce in this assumption" it's evident that the racist is talking about a stamp or label.
Moreover, as somebody else mentioned around here, a simple answer to this would be just as the racist himself implicitly said: when you assert that there's a superior race and another not superior, you're saying that in the inferior race, there're circumstances that damage its well-being. Thus, when you put the segregation act, you are amplifying this damage.
This is my opinion, and I am grateful to you for your contribution.
1 |
Itâs ironic that he starts his paragraph claiming the plaintiff is in fallacy then proceeds to make a fallacious argument
15 |
Kaplan - rare for him - is clearly wrong here. There is no equivocation and the word 'inferior' is not used surreptitiously in different senses. K's claim that they differ is just that - an assertion.
A proper rebuttal of Plessy is: given the situation in which one racial group is already socially stigmatized, separate but equal arrangements will always, by their very nature, reinforce the existing negativities.
3 |
What the legal question that the court must answer to order tp dispose of the case?
1 |
more people need to see this vid
5 |
isn't a 'and only if' missinbg there?
3 |
Ignoring the context within the statement was said, it still valid as Modus Tollens.
If segregation means that both parties are unequal, when either party imposes segregation the other is truly inferior. But since this is untrue and people are always equal, it does not follow that the segregation of peoples changes the inherent value of a person.
I changed the wording of the argument slightly but itâs still the same.
The justice probably believed that blacks were truly inferior but it doesnât change the fact that when using the same definition of inferior(as being inferior rather than labeled as such) for all of its uses the argument is valid. At least thatâs how it seems to me but I could be wrong.
1 |
great lecture ty.
|
Good show hommie
2 |
Top rate lecture .
|
Brown has to make that switch from a psychological consistent point of view. We can argue that people's identity is so engrained, cemented that unconsciously it is impossible to violate the perceived self. For those conscious of it, it can become a tool to use the reasoning from.
There is also another underlying assumption, and that is, that you only can switch 1 to 1, meaning that blacks will exactly do the same, and invent the same as whites. That is a fallacy in itself. Being dominant, doesn't mean the other is inferior. There's a difference between domineering and being dominant. Being dominant also doesn't mean a person is self-sustaining and independent. It defies the notion of social animal.
I must say, I have learned a lot from this video. Sometimes you have an intuitive feeling that something doesn't add up, but having the tools to do this qualitatively is very helpful.
The whole argument seems like a utilitarian argument. From that we could infer that the argument is narcissistic in nature or even psychopathic. It reduces the others to mere instruments in an environment that dominantly favors one.
I know this is about law, but I am very interested in carving out society and societies on a spectrum of character traits. Psychopathy is not a psychological ailment.
What the difficulty is with all these things is, that the majority of people are emotional beings. So logic, extreme materialist and instrumentalist views violate the deep notion of social emotional feelings. Therefore you can't leave these things out. Ho general you started, each case is particular in nature with some abstract resemblances.
All this said with no formal law education.
|
I just discovered this video and Iâm glad I did! I do have a question though: wonât the last sentence, which talks about âwhites will not acquiesce to this assumptionâ, imply that the inferiority Justice Brown is referring to in the second premise to be the label, as opposed to being actually inferior? You canât âacquiesceâ to a state of being and only to a label
11 |
Not that it would necessarily change your point and more out of curiosity on your thoughts, but wouldn't there be three potential "inferiority" levels?
1. Labeled
2. Treated as
3. Actually
Great content, recent follower!
2 |
is this inductive or deductive reasoning?
1 |
Thanks
|
For me the quoted passage reeks of a peculiar form of moral degradation: the urge to say 'you're just like me: you'd do the bad things I do if you had the chance'.
Did, in fact, black dominated legislatures ever impose segregation? I somehow doubt it though the white population would probably have felt anger that there were black people writing laws on any subject whatever.
It also says "The white populations just is superior and their amour propre is invulnerable to any insult. The coloured population's feelings are irrelevant."
Both these dog whistles are there as well as the equivocal argument.
7 |
Very interesting. I agree that equivocation may not be the right counter-argument. How about this: if black people were in a position of power and made laws of desegregation, would the white people (at the time, in that part of the country) still acquiesce? To say it more clearly, would white people accept the notion that they are equal? I think this might be a much more direct logical way to object Brown's argument.
|
@TheCynicalPhilosopher
1 year ago
I always like the ham sandwich example for the equivocation fallacy: Nothing is better than eternal happiness A ham sandwich is better than nothing Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness
43 |