(07-22-2020, 12:20 PM)mikesez Wrote: I want you to know that I totally understand how I make you feel.
In my office, I have to deal with people who don't know the difference between heat and temperature. I have to deal with people who don't know the difference between force and velocity. As an engineer, I have to try to help them communicate clearly with our clients, and bite my tongue as they misuse these highly technical terms.
So I come in here talking about what I think of critical race theory, but I haven't read the same books as either, and I haven't taken classes on it. You must be throwing your hands up, saying, "Gah! That's not what it means! What you're describing is actually this whole other issue!"
But here's the difference.
If I allow buildings and structures to be designed based on my untrained colleagues' understanding of the loads and material properties, these buildings will fail. People could get hurt. Millions of dollars will be wasted having to rehabilitate the structures and mechanical systems.
If any of us goes through life with a misunderstanding of the law, we might break the law and have to pay the penalties.
But you political scientists are not applying the laws of physics or the laws of men. You're creating a whole esoteric system of vocabulary that means nothing to anyone outside of your field. And you even have schisms with each other. Conservative political scientists insist that critical race theory is an overarching system of thought. Liberal political scientists insist that it is a set of ideas that are only loosely associated with each other, you can believe some without believing all. They must be talking about different things.

So you admit you don't really know enough about this subject to sound intelligent, and instead of backing down, you just disregard a whole discipline. You didn't even use terminology correctly in your post, but you think you have enough information to dismiss an entire field of knowledge? I wouldn't care if you were willing to learn anything over the course of our discussions, but you've shown time and time again that you not only don't know what you're talking about, but you don't care to learn. 

I hate to waste my time doing this, but your disingenuous argument is a perfect example of how clueless you are. When I google disingenuous, this is the first result, given by google:

Quote:not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

So, you googled disingenuous, then framed a whole argument around the first definition you found, all while completely disregarding the word, "typically." You should google it, if you don't know what it means. It means most of the time, which indicates that there are times when it is not used in that manner. The fact that you can't even think that hard about a word definition ought to set off alarms that you aren't equipped to think critically about a more complicated subject. To make it worse, you didn't even bother looking at anything else. Here's the next 4 results:

• Merriam Webster: lacking in candor
  
• Dictionary.com: lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere
  
• Vocabulary.com: not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness
  
• Cambridge dictionary: (of a person or their behavior) slightly dishonest, or not speaking the complete truth
  

So what is it? Were you too hasty and uninformed to understand basic vocabulary, or did you actually look at these other definitions before picking the one that best suited your position? Are you stupid or, by your own definition, disingenuous. You pick.

---