Talk:Francisco Gil-White
|
This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. |
Is his anti-racism online book any good?[edit]
I've stumbled on it a few years ago and had the impression it was good: Resurrecting Racism: The modern attack on black people using phony science. But I'm quite biased against conspiracy theories and scientific denial, being inclined to just dismiss most of what the person has to say about anything, by virtue of possibly being the product of the same faulty examination process. Of course that's not an "argument", but just kind of an heuristic, and people can surprisinglly be completely bonkers about one subject and rational about others, and all the degrees in between. It's more like a red-flag/dismiss if I can find better sources or whatever. — Unsigned, by: 179.111.131.199 / talk / contribs
- On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:
on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. - Not only do we hold things to different standards; we hold the same things to different standards at different times. And most revealing of all — we don't even realize when we do it, nor that we do it just as often as anyone else. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Ad hominem[edit]
An ad hominem argument would be that because Al Gore said it, and he's a fool, it's false. Gil-White is just referencing a bad argument as if it's the only one, which is instead cherry-picking. Thus, I removed the claim of ad hominem. Vivisectionist (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)