Things weren’t looking good for the hate-America-always crowd. The fake charges against three rich, white men – the three forces of evil according to the powers in the Democratic Party -- at
This was both devastating and confusing to the movement. What they’d hoped would be the perfect storm of American evil was exposing their efforts as the evil itself. Bigoted misogynists, rendered safe by both their wealth and location in the hateful South, brutally and cynically savaged an innocent, young black student who, for no other reason than the fact that she had the bad luck to be born black in America, had to dance for her white “owners.”
That was the story they hoped to sell and, given that, with their control of the media they’d been able to sell it – or something like it – repeatedly in the past, they had little reason to doubt their coming success.
All the pieces were rapidly put into place. No need for evidence or deliberation, the universities professors would – en masse – write a letter demanding the guilty men be punished immediately. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would pack up their carpetbags, hold their news conferences and, well, with just a little help from the press, Sharpton could parley this fake rape the way he parleyed another into personal riches and “honor” some twenty years ago.
Even the setting could not be more perfect as the fact that these horrors were committed in the South would render moot all that talk about progress in race relations.
The fact that the children came from successful families made it even that much more delicious for it “proved” another of the Democratic Party’s leader’s claims of “two Americas” where if one was rich one was free of concern, with the system working always on their behalf, but the poor, well, they had no options. John Edwards’ (yes, the multi-gazilionaire John Edwards’) campaign slogan of “two
The South was perfect, in fact, for it provided the hate-America-always crowd with a win-win scenario where conviction proved that America is evil, hateful, racists, misogynist and all of the other claims of the special interest groups and the politicians they own in the Democratic Party while exoneration would even further prove it as, clearly, the “good ole boy” network still sees rich, white boys to go unpunished for their “crimes.”
Only this wasn’t the 1980’s. The leftists’ monopoly in the media had been shattered by Fox News, center-right talk radio and the blogesphere that allowed the people to get past the gatekeepers in their
The letters written by the college professors demanding the “lynching” of three innocent white men – a conceit they felt needed no fact or evidence behind it because, as “college professors” they were superior in all ways to the common folk – proved not only their lack of expertise (not to mention decency and honor) but worked to prove what others had long been saying about the true agenda of the leftists at America’s universities.
Meanwhile, other claims of the hate-America-always crowd began to unravel one-by-one as well. Far from being a poor victim of evil America where a black woman has no hope, the lying stripper was enrolled in a taxpayer-supported university where an education was in the offing, a position likely achieved through nothing other than an affirmative action program that saw some better qualified white student denied admission to make up for some supposed past sin.
And, while the woman on whom the hate-America-always crowd had gambled so much was wasting the opportunities provided to her by the America they sought to attack, the evil “rich, white boys” were not resting on their (or their parents’ laurels) but rather making the most of every opportunity their good fortune had afforded them.
Clearly outstanding students to be admitted to Duke University in the first place, in addition to maintaining their grades at such a competitive and once-great university, they pushed themselves physically to become amongst the world’s best athletes at a demanding and difficult sport.
It didn’t help the hate-America-always crowd that their spokesmen were the twin conmen Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, proving that the race card had been played so many times the hate-America-always folks were down to their last two jokers.
Even the win-win situation the leftists thought they’d created by holding this farce in the South proved to be disastrous for the hate-America-always folks. What the hate-America-always crowd thought for sure would “prove” that no progress had been made since the days of Jim Crowe only served to prove that justice was equally disserved by blatantly racist attacks against innocent whites and that clearly the leftists had taken their campaign against America too far.
If anymore proof were needed of the hate-America-always crowd’s real intentions, take note that at Rosie O’Donnell’s “The View,” they continue to attack the victims of the leftists’ efforts, by slandering the Duke players.
Enter Don Imus.
As I said, things weren’t looking good for the hate-America-always crowd. What they’d counted on to be the perfect storm to prove all of their allegation against
And Imus is a dead man. Why? Not because of what he said – please, the hate-America-always crowd chose the vicious, vile, misogynistic “It’s Hard Out Here For A Pimp” as the best song of 2006. Besides, don’t the lefties always tell us that entertainers have no effect on the people and that’s why it’s okay to sell hateful and vulgar records to children?
No, Imus is a dead man because truth plays no part in the agenda of the hate-America-always crowd – and the fact that Imus is one of them will not save him either. Having exposed themselves and their agenda so clearly and disastrously in the South, they are going to have to turn Imus’ stupid words into the new Holocaust just to try and regain some of the ground they lost.
598 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 598 of 598Which all goes to prove what I said before, there are no rights.
The Court's power to strike down laws was invented by John Marshall in Marbury. And the court has been "inventing" things ever since.
No, you've completely failed to understand.
Whether the US supreme court has the power to strike down laws that it finds unconstitutional has nothing to do with the question of the existence of inherent human rights. These rights exist, at least as Platonic ideals, whether or not the US or the Surpeme Court exist at all.
What an idiot you are, honestly.
All thoughts / all words are "lies" that reveal one's subjective "bias". It is only when "false" words/thoughts are converted to "actions" that "truths" can be perceived and then "created". All "claims to objectivity in reporting" are false... by definition. There "are" no no-spin zones wherever words are spoken or read. The same holds true for "pictures"... and all sense data. To "perceive" requires a "subjective bias". To "witness" is simply to generate another "subjective bias".
These are the beliefs of the "left" and of the "philosophers". It is only the "innocents" who still believe in the possibility of objectivity. The world is "will to power", and nothing besides.
This is why the "left" controls the "language". To re-define words, create "new" truth's, and why Chomsky is their hero. Re-defining "marriage"... re-defining "choice"... re-defining "the good". And with each re-definition, one "destroys" knowledge...the "old" knowledge of the "right".
You can "choose" to either "deny" the truth...or you can use it to fight back. To be "objective" is to "do" nothing, and to let "them" win.
This is the "natural law" theory of rights which I subscribe to.
Maybe you don't. But the founding fathers are with me on this one.
John Locke incorporated natural law into many of his theories and philosophy, especially in Two Treatises of Government. There is considerable debate about whether his conception of natural law was more akin to that of Aquinas (filtered through Richard Hooker) or Hobbes' radical reinterpretation, though the effect of Locke's understanding is usually phrased in terms of a revision of Hobbes upon Hobbesean constractualist grounds. Locke turned Hobbes' prescription around, saying that if the ruler went against natural law and failed to protect "life, liberty, and property," people could justifiably overthrow the existing state and create a new one.
While Locke spoke in the language of natural law, the content of this law was by and large protective of natural rights, and it was this language that later liberal thinkers preferred. Thomas Jefferson, echoing Locke, appealed to unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
You should probably also read this for an obscenely brief introduction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#
In_contemporary_jurisprudence
e-defining "the good".
LOL. As if humanity hasn't been struggling to define "the good" for thousands of years. As if there are only 2 possible definitions, that of the left and of the right, and all the rest of the world -- the other countries, religions, conceptions, systems of thought that exist today and have existed throughout time are irrelevant.
Is it difficult to go through life being as stupid as you are?
"Anonymous, again, i'm simply not going to argue constitutional interpretation with you. It would be like if you tried to argue about military tactics on a wasp-class boat with FJ. FJ knows a whole lot more about it than you ever possibly could, and being a law student who has taken many constitutional interpretation classes, I think i know a lot about the constitution."
How would have you a clue what I know and what I do not know? Your arrogance is hilarious. Do you understand the difference between the Constitution and precedence? The difference is I care about what the Founders meant, and you do not. I want to understand what the Constitution says, and you do not. I "interpret" the Constitution from an originalist point of view (which is really the only view that makes sense), and you do not. You act as if I made this up, when fact it is the view of Constitutional scholars trying to understand the original intent of the Founding Fathers. I do not care about "many" views; I care about the correct view; the one given by our Founding Fathers. The best way to understand the Constitution is to read the Federalist Papers.
"So you're against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I think this is the end of the discussion, really. "
I believe in liberty. I believe that a business has the right to hire and fire whoever they want for whatever they want. You, on the other hand, do not believe in liberty. This is the end of discussion. You are just another socialist.
Anonymous, you're against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. You're so on the fringe that there's no debating this point with you.
As for the question of constitutional interpretation, apart from the question of whether "original intent" is the only correct way to interpret the constittion, you don't understand original intent either.
Please, go read amendment #9. Then, please go read Jefferson about natural rights. Go read Locke about the right to life, liberty and property. You don't even understand what the founding fathers wanted, forget understanding any other method of constitutional interpretation.
Furthermore, the decision Marbury v. Madison, which established the Supreme Court's jurisdiction and power to strike down laws as unconstitutional has very little, if anything, in it about "original intent." The WHOLE DECISION is a structuralist argument about separation of powers and the text of the constitution. If you believe that "original intent" is the only way to interpret the constitution, then you must be against the power of the court to strike down unconstitutional laws, because that power is not in the constitution, and it appears only once in Paper 78, but does not appear in the decision, by Hamilton. There was no overwhelming concensus among the founding fathers as to this power.
Moreover, it seems you completely ignore the foundational idea that laws are needed to protect liberty. Liberty is not the fewest laws possible.
It's great belonging to a fringe group that represents the majority opinion of people living on earth (and not just a privledged corner of it).
And as for your being a lover of "natural rights", you really do enjoy blowing smoke up your own *rse, don't you?
Liberty is not the fewest laws possible. Then what is it? G_d was able to create and run the universe with one.
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. Intellectuals solve problems, geniuses prevent them.
And it only took one law to civilize man.
And guess which one it was? The very law you insist has no purpose (Freud, "Totem and Taboo").
"Freud Abstract for Totem & Taboo"
The horror of incest is discussed. The Australian aborigines, set before themselves with the most scrupulous care and the most painful severity the aim of avoiding incestuous sexual relations. Their whole social organization seems to serve that purpose or to have been brought into relation with its attainment. Among the Australians the place of all the religious and social institutions which they lack is taken by the system of totemism. A totem is, as a rule, an animal and more rarely a plant or a natural phenomenon, which stands in a peculiar relation to the whole clan. In almost every place where there are totems there is also a law against persons of the same totem having sexual relations with one another and consequently against their marrying. The violation of the prohibition is avenged in the most energetic fashion by the whole clan. Exogamy linked with the totem effects more than the prevention of incest with a man's mothers and sisters. It makes sexual intercourse impossible for a man with all the women of his own clan by treating them all as blood relatives. Totemic exogamy appears to have been the means for preventing group incest. In an Australian tribe, 12 totem clans are divided into 4 subphratries and 2 phratries. Ml the divisions are exogamous. Various customary prohibitions (avoidances) are discussed such as those in Melanesia where intercourse between a boy and his mother and sisters is avoided by the boy moving out of the house. He subsequently does not meet them in public or speak of them. Similar customs prevail in New Caledonia, New Britain, New Mecklenburg, Fiji and Sumatra. The most widespread and strictest avoidance is that which restricts a man's intercourse with his mother-inlaw. Incestuous wishes (childhood incestuous wishes that have been repressed) later become unconscious, and are regarded by savage peoples as immediate perils against which the most severe measures of defense must be enforced.
So much for the effects of Marcusian desires to eliminate "surplus repression" (Eros & Civilization)
Fj = bla bla bla bla. Who are you talking to? Do you even read what i post? I said that not supporting the 1964 Civil Rights Act (btw, there was one in 1866 as well, which anonymous here doesn't seem to support) is very fringe. Boy, you really do have a one-track, homosexual=focused mind. I wonder why Anonymous doesn't support the civil rights actS... surely it's not because he's got something against racial minorities....
"Liberty is not the fewest laws possible. Then what is it? G_d was able to create and run the universe with one."
See, this is why your local Wal Mart won't let you leaflet in front of their store anymore -- you're just too crazy! Isn't the a a reconstructionist meeting you should be going to? Jesus is coming sooner than you think. lol
me - You seem to be an expert in where the mainstream and fringes of all opinions lie. How do you know this stuff? And if you aren't simply pulling it out of your *rse, start proving what you say. You've yet to substantiate a single one of your erroneous opinions with facts.
You claim that anon. is against the '64 Civil Rights Act. Where did he say that? You make these strawman arguments and then feel good about yourself for knocking your own stupid arguments down.
Anon said he was "for" liberty. He said he was "against discimination laws." How does THAT translate into being against the '64 Civil Rights Act?
You're so interested in proving that I hate homo's and anon is a racist with your strawmen arguments that even if we were, who the 'f cares? The only inalienable right people actually do have and that you sophists have been unsuccessful in changing is the right to believe whatever the 'h you want to believe...and YOU are trying to deny us even that. Like we have to agree with or even care about your "faux-mainstream" opinion.
Get a life.
Go join the circle jerk at Troy's Bath House on Castro St.. I hear they got a slot they need you to fill.
You seem to know what everybody thinks yet haven't been correct once. That should tell you something. Stop trying to tell other people what they think. The definition of insanity is to repeat the same mistake over and over, each time expecting a different result.
Get a life.
I love being told to get a life by someone who writes "what the f'" and "what the h'" LOL
You're all wrong , all the time. good luck with that...
I support a very limited government. The Constitution does not authorize, nor did the Founding Fathers intend, for the federal government to be funding education, healthcare, welfare, or social security. The federal government was not supposed to rule on issues regarding abortion, drugs, sodomy, or gay marriage. All these things should be left to the states or to the people directly. This is how are federalist system was made. The Constitution specifically says that Congress only as the power to do exactly what the Constitution says it has the power to do. This was also re-emphasized in the Tenth Amendment.
The fact is that Marbury v. Madison presupposes the very thing Marbury v. Madison attempted to establish, which is judicial review. This was simply a power grab by the Supreme Court. If it is not mentioned in the Constitution, then it should have no legal basis. It is amazing to me how you can admit that something is not in the Constitution and yet upholds it regardless. To argue that judicial review is implied in the Constitution was one thing, but to argue that it is not, and still support it, is another. I tend to agree with Thomas Jefferson.
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."
—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force."
—Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
What I said I was opposed to were discrimination laws. I am opposed to the government interfering with private enterprise. You make ridiculous conclusions. It is if I say I am opposed to discrimination laws and you counter with “so you are opposed to the 14th Amendment”, as if the two are synonymous, and then you make an outlandish and irresponsible comment that I have a problem with race relations, as if you even know what race I am. Which race is it I supposedly have a problem with? In logic, this is known as a non sequitur.
Anonymous,
(1) if you really believe everything you wrote, then you should stop fighting the little battles of the supreme court judging on this issue or that issue, and instead fight the big battle against the supreme court having any judicial review power at all.
(2) please go read the ninth amendment. learn about substantive due process -- i.e. if these unspecified rights are retained with the people, shouldn't there be some sort of due process before the people are deprived of them by the state or federal governments?
(3) "What I said I was opposed to were discrimination laws. I am opposed to the government interfering with private enterprise. You make ridiculous conclusions. It is if I say I am opposed to discrimination laws and you counter with “so you are opposed to the 14th Amendment”"
Um, no, that's not what i said, stop setting up strawmen.
I said you're opposed to the 1964 and 1866 Civil Rights Acts, which are the government interfering with private enterprise, telling you that you can't refuse to contract with someone, rent them or sell them housing, or refuse to let them into your store, or seat them separately on the basis of race. It's a perfectly logical conclusion. You're just too chicken to admit the direct logical implications of your own statements.
But I am not surprised. Typical right wing ideological cowardice.
You're so interested in proving that I hate homo's
FJ, we have a direct quote of you yourself saying "i hate homosexuals." There's nothing to prove.
Isn't there a bridge you should be under, or a street corner with some leaflets about the end being nigh?
You do? Produce it! You put words in quotes and say they're mine. I never said "I hate homosexuals". LOL!
And, I should crawl under a bridge? If I did, you'd declare that I made you homeless and blame me for it.
Earth to Karnak, "You're no mind reader." You can't even quote a person correctly.
I guess it doesn't matter what other people actually write. me simply reads what he wants to see.
me... the crow's expert on strawman construction.
You'd think a law student and future lawyer would know how to read and have a respect for language. You aren't planning on ever passing the bar, are you?
I can tell you that the Bill or Rights atempted to restrict the power of the federal government. The Bill of Rights was argued by the anti-federalist, who were opposed to the federal government interfering with the states. I fail to see how the Bill of Rights could possibly be an expansion of federal power.
The point is that the Civil Rights Act should only apply to government. The government cannot discriminate based on race, but a private individual should be able to sell or not sell his or her property to anyone he or she wishes. The government ought not have the right to tell anyone who they can or cannot rent their own property to. All this is, is government interfering with our lives. This is yet another example that liberalism equals control.
Farmer John wrote:
"And I don't hate homosexuals because I fear them. I hate them because they are deliberately causing this crisis of confidence in values that is leading to western extinction."
"You'll get a hatred of the practice of homosexuality though. For I don't fear them. I simply abhor them for practicing deliberate sterility and wallowing in their intemperance."
https://www2.blogger.com/
comment.g?blogID=7938318&
postID=5928819437645559145
I can tell you that the Bill or Rights atempted to restrict the power of the federal government. The Bill of Rights was argued by the anti-federalist, who were opposed to the federal government interfering with the states. I fail to see how the Bill of Rights could possibly be an expansion of federal power.
You should go read about the history of the bill of rights. Many people didn't want it because they feared that it would restrict people's rights by enumerating, that the federal government would feel it can infringe on those not listed. That's why the 9th amendment was added. One of the rights you have is "due process," meaning that the government can't deprive you of your rights without due process. Such a right is an expansion of power because it puts positive obligations on the government to ensure your rights.
The point is that the Civil Rights Act should only apply to government. The government cannot discriminate based on race, but a private individual should be able to sell or not sell his or her property to anyone he or she wishes. The government ought not have the right to tell anyone who they can or cannot rent their own property to. All this is, is government interfering with our lives. This is yet another example that liberalism equals control.
What you are saying, whether you want to explicitly write it out or not, is that you don't suppor the 1866 and 1964 Civil Rights Acts as they are in force right now.
I think it's safe to say that this position is a fringe position, without making a judgment as to whether it is a reasonable or rational one. I espouse some fringe positions as well.
The 9th Amendment was added because the Federalist, who were opposed to the Bill of Rights, feared that by simply listing certain restrictions on federal power would imply that it was not restricted on other areas; in other words that it would increase federal power. Madison argues that the Bill of Rights as not neccessary because the Constitution already outlined what power the federal government had. The 9th Amdendment was passed in order illustrate that the first 8 amendment in no way imply an expansion of federal power.
I do not support the Civil Rights Act when it applies to the private sector. I do support it when it applies to government. It may not be a popular view, but it is a view held by some Republicans, including Ron Paul, and the Libertarian Party.
You said you had a direct quote from me saying "i hate homosexuals."
FJ, we have a direct quote of you yourself saying "i hate homosexuals."
So where is it? Close, but no cigar.
A paraphrase is still not a direct quote, is it?
Is your language impairment related to dyslexia, or merely stupidity?
Perhaps your limited vocabulary explains your inability to interpret law. I sure hope it isn't your intent in the future to claim some kind of disability under the American's w/Disabilities Act for lost legal fee's. I mean, you'd have to actually have an ability to perform legal work and then lose it, but since you never could interpret law correctly, I'm afraid your wasting your time trying to make a case. I mean, after all, this thread constitutes all the proof that would be needed to deny a legal claim...
as to your argument about the bill of rights and 9th amendment, i refer you back to what i wrote about due process and positive obligations. this is a long-standing argument about positive and negative rights, and positive and negative obligations. I think it's undeniable that negative rights, such as the bill of rights, can give rise to positive obligations. I don't know if you can argue with the ideat that the negative rights in the Bill of Rights oblige the federal government positively to ensure the bill of rights is obeyed by the government. otherwise, without enforcement, the bill of rights is worthless. so, in the way of placing positive obligations on the government, the federal government's competentices are extended.
As for Ron Paul, i simply don't think his ideas, which i've looked at, are teneble in a modern society, in particular ideas like the gold standard.
FJ, you can fixate on the fact that "I don't hate homosexuals because I fear them. I hate them " is not exactly "i hate homosexuals." I'm sure you're familiar with grammar, though. The substitution of "them" for "homosexuals" gives you "I hate homosexuals."
But this is just a way to avoid the fact that we have proof that you hate homosexuals, the proof is that you've said so yourself. Caught again in your own stupidity and forgetfulness.
Whatever.
In other wrods, you wrote "You're so interested in proving that I hate homo's"
And i think i have conclusively proved that you have stated you hate them.
And you also wrote:
Anon said he was "for" liberty. He said he was "against discimination laws." How does THAT translate into being against the '64 Civil Rights Act?
Please note anonymous has admitted he's against the part of the act that talks about public accomodation with respect to private parties, which is a large part of the act, and one of its greatest innovations and changes to american society.
Oh, are you now trying to argue that the meaning of one's words when put together to form a broader concept is more important than the words themselves? This would appear to be a new standard with you, since previously you ignored the broader context and chose to fixate on specific words used to deconstruct the texts in a manner supportive of your agenda.
You can't have it both ways me. It's a non sequitor.
And you continue to stick words into anon's mouth as well. What does "public accomodation" have to do with "all" businesses? Just because the court saw fit to extend it's interpretation of the Commerce clause to the public accomodation sector simply means that the court over-reached... again... as anon has been saying all along.
You keep stretching and stretching the meaning of words, me. In that respect, you're kinda like the SCOTUS.
You wrote: "You're so interested in proving that I hate homo's"
Tell me I haven't proved that you hate homosexuals, and prove once again that you're a total moron.
What does "public accomodation" have to do with "all" businesses? Just because the court saw fit to extend it's interpretation of the Commerce clause to the public accomodation sector simply means that the court over-reached... again... as anon has been saying all along.
Go read the law, before you open your mouth:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/
laws/majorlaw/civilr19.htm
The Court ran out of wiggle room with the Equal Protection clause, and so started to attempt to regulate the private sector under the Commerce Clause... so go read the law yourself.
...with you and the Court...seven become nine...becomes twenty...becomes a thousand.
I tend to interpret seven as 7. And you can say it means nine till you're blue in the face. It's still 7.
Thanks for proving my point. Why do i even bother talking to you? At least anonymous isn't a hostile asshole.
...and just because the court has recently decided that inter-state commerce is the same as intra-state commerce simply means that like you, they've got grease on the soles of their feet...
LOL! What are you?
I repeat:
You wrote: "You're so interested in proving that I hate homo's"
Tell me I haven't proved that you hate homosexuals, and prove once again that you're a total moron.
I agree with Ron Paul on many issues, but I fail to see the importance of the Gold Standard. His stance on the Gold Standard, however, does not undermine his position on discrimination laws. These laws tend to have unintended consequences.
I also am interested on how you feel about BET, and the Miss Black America pageant. I think it is safe to say that a non-black will never be Miss Black America. I also have a feeling that you also support race based affirmative action, which is by definition, racial discrimination, by the government no less.
From a business point of view discrimination does not make sense. If business A decides it will only hire white males, it will most likely hire underqualified individuals, as well as lose a huge portion of the market. It simply does not make economic sense to discriminate solely on race. This is the same reason that the "glass ceiling" is utter nonsense.
If it is true that a company can "purchase" the labor of women, for the same exact work and productivity, at $0.60 to the dollar to that of men, it would be difficult to imagine how men would still have jobs. It is safe to say, that people generally pay for cheaper goods, all things being equal. For example, if you could purchase one liter of Coke for $1, or another liter of Coke, assuming both liters are equal, for $0.5, I would imagine you would purchase the liter priced at $0.5. At this rate, women should be pricing men out of the market.
Yes, I support race-based affirmative action. In the case of blakcs, that or reparations.
Your argument about an economics case disproving the wage gap and the glass ceiling is on the assumption that employers are completely rational actors who have no baseless prejudices. Yes, why are employers willing to pay men more than women? Because many employers still have notions that women aren't as dedicated, have as much of a work ethic, are as smart, etc. -- they are paying the "man premium" for benefits they perceive they get.
Your Coke argument is very interesting -- if you could purchase 1 liter of coke for $1, or one liter of generic-brand soda for $.50, why isn't coke out of business, assuming the two taste the same? Well, the two don't taste the same, and there is also the symbolic value of coke, the perceived notion of guaranteed quality. A company that make generic-brand soda could actually be a better company with better standards, but htere is value in a brand name, and it's the perceptions that it evokes in customers. Same thing for men and women -- employers still have notions about men that they are willing to pay more for. Studies show a wage gap even when controlled for number of hours worked, etc.
As for Miss Black American Pageant, and BET, it doesn't really bother me, but that's not the point. I think these are exceptions we can all agree to tolerate while a historically disadvantaged people builds its identity. Same thing for gays, women, hispanics, asians, etc. If we ever do reach a race-blind society, these things will wither away or change, just like similar organizations of previously oppressed minorities have. For example, at the turn of the last century, the Irish were a highly discriminated against minority. Boston College was founded because Irish people were not accepted anywhere. It was predominantly Irish. Same reason that Howard University was founded. But BC, although retaining its irish and catholic roots, has completely entered the mainstream, and few people nowdays even know of the horrible prejudices Irish (and Italian) Americans were subject to.
Once again, you haven't "proved that I hate homosexuals," since you haven't explained why "I love my brother," a homosexual and, once again, you're a total moron.
btw - Here's why you'll never succeed in stretching the Constitution to mean whatever you want it to mean, me. When the document was written, the Founders outlined the document's purpose...We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Nope, nothing about equality, interstate commerce, separation of church and state, or deference to the UN or so-called "human" rights there. Oh yeah, homo's don't have much "posterity" to worry about, either. There's nothing in it about abandoning the "common defense" for political gain, either.
Look, FJ, you're just an idiot. it's not my job to help you. you'll die an idiot, i think.
Plus, even your own argument is demented. What exactly do you think "promote the general Welfare" could mean? how about "establish justice"? What about "the blessings of liberty"?
Aside from the fact that the recitation has nothing to do with the actual articles and amendments of law, the founders weren't stupid. they wrote in vague terms for a reason. and that reason is lost upon you, my nutcase friend.
again, I think it's time your return to your designated corner with your Jack Chick pamphlets.
Fortunately, our Founders were not slave doctors...
Jowett Summary of Plato's, "The Laws"
And is our lawgiver to have no preamble or interpretation of his laws, never offering a word of advice to his subjects, after the manner of some doctors? For of doctors are there not two kinds? The one gentle and the other rough, doctors who are freemen and learn themselves and teach their pupils scientifically, and doctor's assistants who get their knowledge empirically by attending on their masters? 'Of course there are.' And did you ever observe that the gentlemen doctors practise upon freemen, and that slave doctors confine themselves to slaves? The latter go about the country or wait for the slaves at the dispensaries. They hold no parley with their patients about their diseases or the remedies of them; they practise by the rule of thumb, and give their decrees in the most arbitrary manner. When they have doctored one patient they run off to another, whom they treat with equal assurance, their duty being to relieve the master of the care of his sick slaves. But the other doctor, who practises on freemen, proceeds in quite a different way. He takes counsel with his patient and learns from him, and never does anything until he has persuaded him of what he is doing. He trusts to influence rather than force. Now is not the use of both methods far better than the use of either alone? And both together may be advantageously employed by us in legislation.
We may illustrate our proposal by an example. The laws relating to marriage naturally come first, and therefore we may begin with them. The simple law would be as follows:--A man shall marry between the ages of thirty and thirty-five; if he do not, he shall be fined or deprived of certain privileges. The double law would add the reason why: Forasmuch as man desires immortality, which he attains by the procreation of children, no one should deprive himself of his share in this good. He who obeys the law is blameless, but he who disobeys must not be a gainer by his celibacy; and therefore he shall pay a yearly fine, and shall not be allowed to receive honour from the young. That is an example of what I call the double law, which may enable us to judge how far the addition of persuasion to threats is desirable.
I know, me, you believe in the "empirical approach"...
...and the terms you find so silly have very specific meanings, well know to the legislators of the time. One could almost say that they had "objective" meanings.
"Studies show a wage gap even when controlled for number of hours worked, etc."
When these studies account for number of hours worked, years of education, time off of work, and other variables, there is little to no difference between pay. The reason women are often paid less has to do with the jobs they go into and the decisions they make. For example, women are more likely to take time of to have children. There are no hidden forces working against women. Your assumption is based on the assumption that the Great Male Bigot is out to keep women down. How can this be when 60% of collete students are women, plus the fact that the SBA targets women for loans, and the existence of such things as Title IX. The government bends over backwards for women. This time of attitude has a name (coined by Larry Elder) called a victicrat, which is the belief that all your problems are caused by outside forces acting against you.
"Same thing for gays, women, hispanics, asians, etc. If we ever do reach a race-blind society..."
So basically white males are the only non-protected group. In other words, you want a double standard. Is this not true? Do you support race based affirmitive action?
I fail to see how we can ever reach a race blind society when we break people into racial groups. How can we reach a race blind society whith such things like minority business loans and race based affirmative action? How can we ever reach a race blind society when Hillary Clinton says "when you look at the way the Republicans are running Congress; they've been runnin' it like a plantation, and you know whud i'm talkin' about" The fact is race baiting works, and the Democrats are masters at it. A color blind society is bad for business for the Dems.
What was "justice" again, me? Oh yeah, the sophist doesn't "know".
"promote the general Welfare"
This the preamble to the Constitution as added at the very last moment as an afterthought, and was never apart of the actual debate. In other words, the premable really has no legal standing.
It's whatever Thrasymachus says it is. LOL!
Au contraire. It's the only thing with ANY "constitutional" standing. A purpose.
...and when the document no longer serves that purpose...it's time to produce a new document.
Anonymous is correct, and restates what I said, quite inadroitly, in writing "Aside from the fact that the recitation has nothing to do with the actual articles and amendments of law,"
The preamble has no constitutional standing. It may be used to figure out "original intent," but it is not law per se.
As to the question of general welfare, however, I point you to, ARticle 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Here's a study, that controls for hours worked, etc. And yet there is still a wage gap, right out of college, before there are any children. The study says that the gap is 20% and that gender is responsible for a quarter of the gap, i.e. 5%. The study even compares jobs in the same majors -- women who majored in math make 76 on the dollar of men who majored in math.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/
idUSN2029109620070423?feedType=RSS
Now, you may not think that 5% is a lot, but I do.
Your assumption is based on the assumption that the Great Male Bigot is out to keep women down.
No, that's the assumption. But if you've ever been mistaken for a secretary simply because you're a woman, or sexually harrassed by someone far superior than yourself, then maybe you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that prejudices still exist, very much so.
We can't have a race-blind society if we do not work to bring everyone up to speed. If you eliminate affirmative action, the earnings gap, hosuing gap, college graduation gap between races will still persist, and racial prejudice will continue. These problems can't be solved in 10, 20, 30 years. they take many decades of slow and gradual change., with persistent work towards improvement.
Wiki...Technically speaking, the preamble of the U.S. Constitution does not assign any powers to any entity within the national government,[1] yet the Supreme Court has cited from the preamble in consideration of the history, intent and meaning of various clauses which follow it in the Constitution.[2] As Joseph Story said in his Commentaries, "Its true office is to expound the nature and extent and application of the conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them.
The language "We, the People of the United States of America" is of singular importance in that it provides that the power and authority of the federal government of the United States of America does not come from the several states, or even the people of the several states, but from an entity identified as the People of the United States of America, with the Constitution serving as a compact or contract between the People of the United State of America, the several States, and a newly created entity: the federal government of United States of America. The importance of this language lies in that it places the federal government of the United States of America as not derivative of its power solely from the several States. This would become a greater issue of contention during the Nullification Crisis (testing the ability of a sovereign state to nullify a federal law based upon the premise that the federal government drew its power from the several states and thus a sovereign state was free to ignore a federal law inconsistent with its own) and during the Civil War (testing the ability of a sovereign state, through its people, to secede from the Union or withdraw from the compact). This, of course, made more sense when the federal government of the United States was still one of limited enumerated powers as the Founders intended (sovereign in the enumerated areas and powerless in the others), and when both the People and the several States were represented in federal legislature (the People in the House of Representatives and the several States in the Senate before the 17th Amendment, when the state legislatures still elected a state's Senators). This language thus represented the Founders' desire for outside 'checks and balances' or divided sovereignty (the People of the United States vs. the Federal Government of the United State of America vs. the Several States) as well as inside 'checks and balances' or divided sovereignty (the legislature vs. the executive vs. the judiciary).
And as much as you'd like the feds to have "unlimited" powers... they don't. The corruptions in interpretation have become far too evident (ie - Roe vs Wade)
These problems can't be solved in 10, 20, 30 years. they take many decades of slow and gradual change.,
How much more "dumbing down" do we have to do? Instead of a "rising tide" they have to drain the lake. Since it's too much work to make people equally smart, they have to be made "equally stupid".
economic realities tend to overule most "study results".
o/t - China will this year surpass the United Stated in greenhouse emissions. Since China is a "developing nation", they are not subject to Kyoto emission limits.
That's how lawyers create "equality". They handicap the able in favor of the backwards.
Is there any doubt in anyone's mind as to how "affirmative action" really works?
Warren Farrell, PhD argues in Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap -- and What Women Can Do About It, that when men and women do the exact same work, women actually earn slighly more for the same work. A large reason that men make more money is that men tend to go into the least diserable jobs. We can throw around studies all day, so I have a feeling this is not going to go anywhere. Nevertheless, plenty of studies show that any gap in pay has little to nothing to do with sexism. However, even if there was a gap, do you want to the government to set wages?
Why is it that you feel blacks need affirmative action to catch up? Do you believe that standards must be lowered in order for blacks to succeed? Is that not condensending? It is basically saying that blacks need training wheels in order to compete with whites. It is ridiculous. Blacks are just as capable as whites and thus do not need government hand outs.
Why is it that you feel blacks need affirmative action to catch up? Do you believe that standards must be lowered in order for blacks to succeed? Is that not condensending? It is basically saying that blacks need training wheels in order to compete with whites. It is ridiculous. Blacks are just as capable as whites and thus do not need government hand outs.
Because success is not just about inherent capability. It's about environment, it's about an accumulation of wealth, educational wealth, stability, etc. And because black people, until very recently, were je dure disadvantaged in all of those fields, it is ridiculous to expect them to make up for it immediately on the basis of their capabilities alone, since they are just as, but not more, capable than whites.
However, even if there was a gap, do you want to the government to set wages?
No, obvoiusly not.
Are you aware that if you were to pool all blacks in the United States and count them as a country, it would be the 13th wealthiest country in the world, meaning that it would have the 13th highest GDP? I fail to see how wealth has anything to do with it. If wealth is truly the issue, then we should have wealth based affirmative action, not race based affirmative action. I know plenty of white men and women living with a single parent making roughly $30,000 dollars a year that paid for their own education at private universities. At no time were these people offered any advantage because they were white. However, if they were non-white, they could have applied for many race based scholarships.
(1) 13th highest GDP/capita?
(2) Unless you're willing to claim that there is no racism in our society, black people, even if they attain high levels of education, and even wealth, never stop being black, never stop suffering the disadvantages that come with being black. Disadvantages that, apart from having been suffered in the accumulation of wealth and capital, both monetary and otherwise, previously, are still apparent in our current society, and are well-documented. In housing, in hiring, in pay, in profiling, in purchasing goods and services, loan interest rates for mortgages, etc.
Snide young aristocrat to Benjamin Disraeli: Excuse me, Sir, but do you know what a kike is?
Benjamin Disraeli: Yes, I do, Sir. A kike is a Jewish Gentleman who has just left the room.
1) Yes, or at least the top 15.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30199
2) Racism will always exist. This is known as the "Elvis Factor". You are always going to have that small percentage that is racist. On the other hand, racism is not going to hold black people back. As long as they work hard they will succeed. As long as they continue to complain about the hidden forces of racism, they will not. I think it is a little insulting to suggest that white people have so much power and influence over black people. Apparently calling white people racist is one acceptable racist stereotype. I cannot see how anyone could argue that racism is a major problem, especially in light of what just happened to Don Imus. If anyone says anything that has the hint of being racist, they will be beaten to a pulp. Racism is hardly a problem. One wonders how Oprah avoided the Great White Bigot and made billions. Maybe she fooled all the white folks into thinking that she was white.
1) Actually, I am not sure about per capita. I missed that initially.
Here's no surpise...
Homos on the prowl
Baldwin's research is substantiated in a recently completed body of work written by Dr. Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education and author of numerous authoritative books debunking sexual myths, including "Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences."
In her thesis – also written for the Regent University Law Review – Reisman cited psychologist Eugene Abel, whose research found that homosexuals "sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls. …"
Abel also found that non-incarcerated "child molesters admitted from 23.4 to 281.7 acts per offender … whose targets were males."
"The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering," said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. "Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls."
Jay Heavener, spokesman for PFLAG – Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, counters that federal crime data refute claims that homosexuals molest children at higher rates than heterosexuals.
"According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), this claim is false," he told WND by e-mail. "The gay and lesbian community calls into question any dubious research which flies in the face of our own experience."
Proof of discrimination against homos. No wonder they need a "tax loophole" called marriage...
According to 1988 surveys by Simmons Market Research Bureau In., the average household income of the readers of the top eight homosexual newspapers is $55,430, compared to $32,144 for all Americans. Since the average homosexual household has fewer than two people, per capita income among homosexual households is three times that of the general population. In addition, 59.6 percent of the homosexual population have college degrees compared with 18.0 percent among the overall population, and 49.0 percent of the homosexual population hold professional or managerial positions, compared with 15.9 percent of the general population.
Racism will always exist. This is known as the "Elvis Factor". You are always going to have that small percentage that is racist.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce it. Crime will also always exist, but that doesn't mean all the cops should just turn in their badges and go home.
On the other hand, racism is not going to hold black people back. As long as they work hard they will succeed. As long as they continue to complain about the hidden forces of racism, they will not.
Don't you think that's a little simplistic? Not every allegation of racism is passive, victimhood-loving whining. These are, frankly, lovely platitudes that don't actually suggest any plan of action.
I think it is a little insulting to suggest that white people have so much power and influence over black people. Apparently calling white people racist is one acceptable racist stereotype.
Whie people do have a lot of power and influence -- over everyone, white and otherwise. Just look at who leads this country, who leads the government, the corporations, the nonprofits, the universities, etc. And i never said ALL white people are racist. And I never said that only white people are racist. I've met non-whites who are also quite racist against other races, whites and otherwise.
I cannot see how anyone could argue that racism is a major problem, especially in light of what just happened to Don Imus. If anyone says anything that has the hint of being racist, they will be beaten to a pulp. Racism is hardly a problem. One wonders how Oprah avoided the Great White Bigot and made billions. Maybe she fooled all the white folks into thinking that she was white.
That's like saying that because Benazir Bhutto was PM of Pakistan, there is no sexism or discrimination on the basis of gender in that country. That applies to both your Imus example and your Oprah example.
Just an anecdote: perhaps you've caught word of this Georgia town that just had its first integrated prom. Previously, the proms were privately held, one for whites, one for blacks. This year, they finally had a school-endorsed mixed prom. and EVEN IN 2007, there were still some white kids whose parents didn't approve of them going to the integrated prom.
Why homo's want free health care...
* Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States (5). They make up only 1-2% of the population
* Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the "gay bowel syndrome" (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (27)
* 73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization (13)
* 25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics (11)
* Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film "The Castro", one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to "cruisy areas" and have anonymous sex
* 78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs (20)
* Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, "Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities" (10)
* Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, "30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals" (10)
* 50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals (10)
* Dr. Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist, says, "Homosexuality by definition is not healthy and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person" (10). For other psychiatrists who believe that homosexuality is wrong, please see National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality
* It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us(10)
* Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population
* Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne (8)
* 37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism (8)
* 41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs (8)
* Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries (8)
* The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (8)
* The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79 (8)
* Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident (8)
* 21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide or traffic accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher than the number of white heterosexual females aged 25-44 who die of these things(8)
* 50% of the calls to a hotline to report "queer bashing" involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals) (18)
* About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians (12).
* 33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex (7)
* There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association ( NAMBLA). This is a child molesting homosexual group whose cry is "SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE." This group can be seen marching in most major homosexual parades across the United States
* Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor (19)
* 73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age (9)
* Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: "The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality" (22)
* Because homosexuals can't reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children. Homosexuals can be heard chanting "TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT" in their homosexual parades. A group called the "Lesbian Avengers" prides itself on trying to recruit young girls. They print "WE RECRUIT" on their literature. Some other homosexuals aren't as overt about this, but rather try to infiltrate society and get into positions where they will have access to the malleable minds of young children (e.g., the clergy, teachers, Boy Scout leaders, etc.) (8).
So, half a trillion per year is $500 billion. There are 36.6 million blacks in America. That comes out to $13,661/per capita/per year.
According to the CIA factbook, that puts black Americans between Saudi Arabia and Mauritius, between #73 and #74 on the global ranking. Far from the #13 cited on WND (shock!). US as the whole has a GDP/Capita of $43K/year, and weighs in at #10.
That kind of disparity is quite striking, I think.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/
factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
The AIDS boondoggle
Although AIDS cases and deaths are declining and the disease is completely preventable, it nonetheless gets almost $180,000 in research funds per death from the National Institutes of Health. Compare that to its closest rivals: Parkinson's Disease, prostate cancer, and diabetes. All of these receive about $14,000 per death. Alzheimer's gets about $11,000.
2/8/2001 Catching HIV in Single Sex Act Low By
DANIEL Q. HANEY .c The Associated Press CHICAGO (AP) - A study of
heterosexual couples in Africa concludes that the chance of catching the AIDS virus from a single sexual encounter with an infected person is one in 588. This risk is calculated for people who do not use condoms and who have sex regularly with one infected partner... estimates from North America placed the risk at about one in 1,000 for heterosexuals.
Of course for unprotected anal sex, the changes plunge to 1 in 2 (50-50)
According to the CIA factbook, that puts black Americans between Saudi Arabia and Mauritius, between #73 and #74 on the global ranking. Far from the #13 cited on WND (shock!). US as the whole has a GDP/Capita of $43K/year, and weighs in at #10.
That kind of disparity is quite striking, I think.
I am not sure how you came to that conclusion. The article was written by Larry Elder. It was only posted on WND. I could have linked to his website. Either way, the study is accurate. In terms of GDP, a black nation would be the 13th wealthiest nation in the world. I have no clue what you just did. If anything, it means that there is a wealth gap among blacks, like billionaire Oprah. With this kind of wealth, it is difficult to argue that that blacks are discriminated against in any meaningful sense. The White Bigot remains the product of a delusional mind. In fact, Larry Elder was a great chapter his book The Ten Things You Can't Say In America, called Blacks Are More Racist Than Whites, and it really sheds a light on the truth.
According to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the CIA Worldfact Book, it would place this hypothetical nation in the 20's; around the same GDP is Poland. Not bad for this tiny hypothetical nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
Another great book that illustrates the problem of white condemnation is White Guilt by Shelby Steele. Larry Elder also has another eye opening chapter titled White Condemnation is Worse Than White Racism. Aint it the truth. There are a lot of race pimps out there.
I have no clue what you just did.
Elder writes that the black GDP in the US is half a trillion dollars = $500 billion.
We know that there are 36.6 million blacks in the US.
We take the first number and divide it by the second number to get the black GDP/capita in the US. It's really quite simple.
The result is $13,661 GDP/capita for american blacks. If you look at the CIA rankings of GDPs per capita, you will see that that fits in at #74, as I posted earlier, whereas the American GDP/capita for everyone is at #10 in the world.
GDP by itself is not that telling - Russia has a high GDP, so does India, but that doesn't mean much without taking into account the number of people that the number represents. And the GDP per capita for Russia and India is ranked much lower than its general GDP.
If you think my number is somehow incompatible with the CIA stats, go to the US website, take the GDP number, around $13 trillion, that they cite, divide it by the population number (around 301 million) that they cite, and divide GDP by population. You'll get around $43,000, which is the GDP/capita that they cite. It all checks out. Nto very difficult.
"GDP by itself is not that telling"
It measures the wealth of the nation as a whole. Based on this, this black nation would have a GDP about the same as Poland, making it around the 20th richest nation. The country of Luxembourg has 468,000 people. It is a tiny nation and cannot really be compared to much larger nations. If we take the GDP per capita as given, all this would suggest is that there is an income disparity in the black community. Maybe blacks are discriminating against other blacks. Or maybe, people make different choices that lead to different results. Personal responsibility is not a liberal virtue. Blaming everything on other people is the liberal way. In fact, I am not a millionaire either and thus maybe The Man is keeping me down. It should really be called The Great White Scape Goat.
1982-2002 AIDS Stats for Wisconsin
Men who have sex with men (M)2,984 68.3% (F)0 0%
Injecting drug use (M)566 12.9% (F)194 31.4%
Men who have sex with men & inject drugs (M)351 8.0% (F)0 0%
Hemophilia/coagulation disorder (M)90 2.1% (F)0 0.0%
Heterosexual contact (M)147 3.4% (F)322 52.1%
Receipt of blood. Blood components/tissue (M)30 0.7% (F)23 3.7%
Mother with/at risk (M)27 0.6% (F)15 2.4%
Risk not identified/other (M)176 4.0% (F)64 10.4%
Total (M)4,371 100% (F)618 100%
Maybe blacks are discriminating against other blacks. Or maybe, people make different choices that lead to different results. Personal responsibility is not a liberal virtue. Blaming everything on other people is the liberal way. In fact, I am not a millionaire either and thus maybe The Man is keeping me down. It should really be called The Great White Scape Goat.
You're setting up a false dichotomy. Either blacks stfu and "take personal responsibility for their lives" completely, or they are just spineless, impotent whiners who can never attribute responsibility for their situation to themselves. There is a middle ground -- yes, there are whiny loafers, of all races and genders, and there are pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps hardworkers. And yes, there is real racism, and real instances of racial discrimination -- is talking about that completely inapproriate?
There obvioulsy is an income disparity -- a very large one. If you're not going to blame it on inherent characteristcs, which you don't seem to be, but many out-and-out racists love to do (blacks love fornicating, blacks are lazier, stupider, etc.), then it's got to be environmental, external. As usually happens, it'a combination of many things, but most of them are tied to the history black people in this country and the major setback they've been handed, as a people. No, black people and black culture aren't blameless, but neither are they completely responsible for their situation and no one else.
Larry Elder is a
There is an IQ disparity, whether you choose to ignore it or not, of one standard devitation which explains ALL the disparities.
But please, continue to simply ignore it. And continue to support liberal policies that widen the gap like you attack on heterosexual marriage.
It is of course "racist" to mention it... but what the hey, the truth has been called by uglier names.
...and most liberal policies create "Katrina traps"...
Baltimore is typical of many Midwestern and Northern cities, whose demographics were forever changed by the great black migration of the twentieth century. Not unexpectedly we found a cognitive discontinuity at the city line. Surprising, however, was its magnitude. Whereas suburban mean IQs (86 for blacks, 99 for whites) conform more or less to national norms, city IQs are dreadfully low. With a mean IQ of 76, inner-city blacks fall about 0.6 SD below the African American average nationally. More than a third have death-penalty immunity on grounds of mental retardation. The inner-city white mean of 86 is nearly a full standard deviation below the national white average. By this measure, whites fared worse than blacks. Both groups are seriously deficient in human capital. Neither is very employable. To compound matters, we almost certainly have overstated urban IQs. City residents constitute a low-IQ group extracted from a more cognitively representative population. Their kids, whose test scores we analyzed, should have regressed toward their racial means, i.e., toward higher IQs. That is, inner city kids are smarter than their parents. Accordingly, our estimates of inner-city IQs are best regarded as upper bounds to adult values.
IQ hardens early in life, locking in the urban deficit. With few prospects for improvement, cities must look elsewhere for amelioration. While we all are aware of the advantages that accrue to the brightest among us, we also know that other qualities carry with them inestimable benefits. Traits like honesty, reliability, perseverance and self-discipline, when cultivated contribute to employability and to a more productive life in general. Indeed, for low-skilled jobs these latter qualities are more important than intellect. Unfortunately, casual observation finds such virtues also wanting.
Finally, we note that a problem cannot be solved until it is defined. This we have done. But where we see cognitive inadequacy, some will find only abject, hopeless misery. As for our efforts, we can be certain of only one thing -- vilification. It could drive a man to pseudonymity
Larry Elder is a...what? An Uncle Tom? I do not know what you are getting at, but he is a black man. His father grew up in the South. He is now 96 years old. He experienced more racism that any black person alive today could possibily imagine, and yet he was a successful business owner and cook. Racism did not hold him back becuase he made good choices and worked hard. This is the message that Larry Elder speaks everyday. Work hard and invest in yourself and good things will happen. Racism is not a major problem for black people, and there really is not any evidence to suggest there is, which is why liberals always talk about the racism of the past. It is really condescending. The white liberal is the black mans worst enemy. Liberals are always telling them how horrible it is for black people, and how racism will make it impossible for them to succeed. Leave it to the white liberal to save black America.
My great grand parents came here from Italy with nothing, and not speaking a word of English, yet they managed to give their children a better life. If they could do it, and Larry Elder's dad can do it, then anyone can do it. People need to stop blaming everything on everyone else and assume some responsibility for their own actions. It is so much easier to simply blame it on the white man.
In order for your "white man is keeping the black man down" theory to be true, you have to somehow explain successful black people as flukes of nature, as exceptions to the rule, or as lucky individuals. How it that people like Oprah are able to make billions? What has she done that is so exceptional? Did she "sell out"? Is she "acting white"? Do people know she is black? How did she manage to overcome the hidden forces of racism?
On Oprah, she an exceptionally talented and motivated individual. Most people, of all races, are not like that. Myself included. The fact that successful black people exist does not disprove that there is indeed racism in America.
Larry Elder, whatever his biography may be, is dishonest with his statistics. He could have done the exceedingly simple arithmetic that i did, but he knew that it would not support his views, so he cited the GDP whole figure, instead of the GDP per capita figure. I hope you see how that figure is very deceptive.
Also, I see you've give up on actual numbers and statistics in favor of reciting platitudes about hard work. Hard work helps, but so does luck, and so does not being black. Assuming that all people have the same normal distribution of talented individuals, hard-working individuals, and motivate individuals, regardless of race, there should be a completely proportional representation of black people and white people in any group you select. Any whatsoever.
In other words, white people make up 81% of the population. Black people make up 12.1% of the population. Those numbers should hold up for college graduates, people who make more than $100k, 200k, millionaires, welfare recipients, etc. But they do not, not even close. I'm not saying that racism explains all of this disparity, but I think that present racism is responsible for a significat part of it, and past racism, both de facto and de jure, is responsible for a large part of it as well.
You write: Work hard and invest in yourself and good things will happen.
Well, this is all fine and good, but i think it's wilfully dishonest to say that this is an inviolable rule. It may be a nice motivational statement, but bad things happen to good people. Some people work hard, and never succeed, get screwed over, unfairly fired. "Life isn't fair," and you know it.
Racism is not a major problem for black people, and there really is not any evidence to suggest there is,
If you really believe this, no amount of studies I cite is going to change your mind.
FJ, I know i shouldn't talk to you, but I did want to point out that it's perfectly fine to talk about the IQ gap. It's well-documented, and it's not racist to mention it.
However, it IS racist to say that the IQ gap is "evidence" that black people are somehow "inherently" less intelligent than white people. It's racist by definition.
Well then, the truth is a racist b*stard, that's all I've got to say. And to say that pygmies are inherently short... is just the height of unfairness.
And since all you care about is false labels anyways... DON'T talk to me.
...but like I said before, I'm ALL FOR interracial heterosexual marriage. It's tough living up to my racist b*stard image, I know. But that's someone else's problem.
So, FJ, are circuitously saying that black people are inherently less intelligent/smart/capable than white people?
If so, come out and say it, soldier. Dont' be a hidin' coward.
As a corollary, again, only if you actually do think there is inherent differences in intelligence by race, could you please rank the races in order of intelligence, in your opinion?
Just for fun. :)
Plato "Statesman"
STRANGER: But in those who were originally of a noble nature, and who have been nurtured in noble ways, and in those only, may we not say that union is implanted by law, and that this is the medicine which art prescribes for them, and of all the bonds which unite the dissimilar and contrary parts of virtue is not this, as I was saying, the divinest?
YOUNG SOCRATES: Very true.
STRANGER: Where this divine bond exists there is no difficulty in imagining, or when you have imagined, in creating the other bonds, which are human only.
YOUNG SOCRATES: How is that, and what bonds do you mean?
STRANGER: Rights of intermarriage, and ties which are formed between States by giving and taking children in marriage, or between individuals by private betrothals and espousals. For most persons form marriage connexions without due regard to what is best for the procreation of children.
YOUNG SOCRATES: In what way?
STRANGER: They seek after wealth and power, which in matrimony are objects not worthy even of a serious censure.
YOUNG SOCRATES: There is no need to consider them at all.
STRANGER: More reason is there to consider the practice of those who make family their chief aim, and to indicate their error.
YOUNG SOCRATES: Quite true.
STRANGER: They act on no true principle at all; they seek their ease and receive with open arms those who are like themselves, and hate those who are unlike them, being too much influenced by feelings of dislike.
YOUNG SOCRATES: How so?
STRANGER: The quiet orderly class seek for natures like their own, and as far as they can they marry and give in marriage exclusively in this class, and the courageous do the same; they seek natures like their own, whereas they should both do precisely the opposite.
YOUNG SOCRATES: How and why is that?
STRANGER: Because courage, when untempered by the gentler nature during many generations, may at first bloom and strengthen, but at last bursts forth into downright madness.
YOUNG SOCRATES: Like enough.
STRANGER: And then, again, the soul which is over-full of modesty and has no element of courage in many successive generations, is apt to grow too indolent, and at last to become utterly paralyzed and useless.
YOUNG SOCRATES: That, again, is quite likely.
STRANGER: It was of these bonds I said that there would be no difficulty in creating them, if only both classes originally held the same opinion about the honourable and good;--indeed, in this single work, the whole process of royal weaving is comprised--never to allow temperate natures to be separated from the brave, but to weave them together, like the warp and the woof, by common sentiments and honours and reputation, and by the giving of pledges to one another; and out of them forming one smooth and even web, to entrust to them the offices of State.
You're too chickenshit to answer the question. Pathetic. No strength in conviction at all.
Blacks overall score lower on tests that measure "G". Asians inherently score higher than the white male mean on tests that measure "visual-Spatial" ability. Women inherently score higher than the white male mean on tests that measure "verbal" ability. Ashkenazic Jews mathematical ability is measured at 0.73 SD's above the white male mean.
A white-black mean difference in g of 1.09 SD exists in favor of whites, equivalent to 16 IQ points. The black g distribution is narrower than the white, with a variance ratio (B/W) of 0.888.
A male-female mean difference in g of 0.162 SD exists in favor of men, equivalent to 2.43 IQ points. The female g distribution is narrower than the male, with a variance ratio (F/M) of 0.916.
Do these facts mean that all these groups are "superior" in "general", or "superior" in performing tasks that require "intellectual ability"? If I've got an advanced math problem to solve, the average Ashkenazi Jew has an inherent "advantage" in his ability to solve it.
But if my task requires running 5,000 meters, I'd put my money on any Kelenjin tribesman in the race. He has an inherent physical advantage.
But if 'g truly represents "general intelligence", which I believe it does, then YES whites are currently inherently more intelligent than blacks.
Do you believe differently" On what basis? Oh yeah, all men, and all groups, perform on all tasks "equally". Even if that means carrying 150# dummies up six stories on a ladder-truck ladder.
Happy?
The GDP as a whole is a more accurate statistic. It shows the state of black people as a whole, which is exactly what we are tyring to measure. We were never measuring differences within the black community. The reason some people are poor and some people are rich has little to do with racism. The problem with liberals as that they are one dimensional. They see everything through a racial lens. They believe everything can be explained by the evil forces of discrimination. The reason Oprah is a billionare is because she made good choices and worked hard. The reason the majority of our prisons are filled with black people has nothing to do with a "racist criminal justice system". It has to do with the fact that blacks commit more crime. I suppose white people force black people into gangs. I suppose they force them to have children out of wedlock. I suppose they force teenage pregnancies. I suppose they force them to drop out of high school. It is absurd. I have no idea how an individual in 21st century America can believe in such nonsense.
Racism is not a major problem in this country. The belief that racism is a major problem for black people is the product of a delusional mind. It is an irrational belief with no empirical evidence. You cannot site studies that prove something that is untrue. It is funny that the liberal spends her time arguing about how unsuccessful black people are.
A Time/CNN poll found that "89 percent of black teens consider racism in their own lives to be 'a small problem' or 'not a problem at all.' Twice as many black teens as white believe that 'failure to take advantage of available opportunities' is a bigger problem for blacks than discrimination. I find it odd that white teenagers are more likely to believe racism is a problem for black people than black teenagers believe. Even if black people feel they are not discriminated against, leave it up to the white liberal to them they are.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4102
I could list many other black individuals expressing the same view, from Bill Cosby, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, among others. I am sure that any study done by a white man arguing that racism is not a major problem for blacks will simply be dismissed as racist. Of course liberals like to dismiss the individuals above by calling them "Uncle Toms".
Though the implications of a 0.73 standard deviation gap in mathematics may go unnoticed by the man in the street, they are profoundly evident at the highest levels of achievement. Such a gap makes a random Ashkenazi Jew 40 times more likely to win a Fields Medal than a random non-Jewish white. In all, thirteen Fields Medals have gone to Ashkenazim as well as 37% of the Nobel Prizes in physics won by Americans.
Random man vs. random woman. Who is smarter?
0.453 for the probability that the woman is smarter
Show us your stuff, hon!
Most people admire a cunning linguist. ;-)
I can't wait to hear you argument concerning how an idealogical construct such as a social group can't "inherently" contain any quality. I love to watch the mass of photons get measured.
Why g Matters (Intelligence, 24(1), 79–132), Linda Gottfredson estimates that a minimum IQ of 120 is needed to be competitive in "high-level" jobs. She cites research analyst and advertising manager as examples. The problem is that only 37% of the workforce meeting this test will be female. If, Gottfredson is correct, and a 120 IQ is a necessary condition for these jobs, g distributions will impose a soft ceiling on women in industry, not glass but statistical. According to EEOC, in 2003, 35.2% of"officials and managers" in the private sector were female -- a number suspiciously close to 37%. Among federal employees, women held 66% of "management" jobs.
hmmm. Sounds like Afirmative Action Gone Wild at the fed...
Nothing in what you've posted shows conclusively that these discrepancies are because of "inherent inequalities" rather than socialization. Nature v. Nurture once again.
Futhermore, you are well aware that IQ is not a perfect measure of "intelligence."
As for me, let's just say that my various standardized test scores put me way beyond the minimum needed to join MENSA.
I am not going to argue for or against I.Q. discrepancies, but I will point out that making a general observation does not give us information about particular events. Even if it is true what men, on average, have higher I.Q.'s than women, this cannot tell us that Man A will have a higher I.Q. than Woman A. For example, we can determine the half life of large number of simular atoms very accurately, but we cannot predict when any given individual atom will decay. Likewise, we may be able to say that one race, as a group, has a higher I.Q. than another race, but we cannot say that one individual of a certain race will have a higher I.Q. than another individual of a certain race.
I have no desire to prove that blacks are less intelligent than whites. In fact, there is evidence that suggest that Asians are more intelligent than whites. Nevertheless, none of these questions, or conclusions, are racist. The question is simply, is it true? I would argue that the racist wants it to be true. Not only will the racist desire it to be true, but the racist will also use this truth (assuming it is true) to argue that a certain race is of less moral worth than another. The fact is that intelligence does not determine the moral worth of an individual. To argue that it does, is racist. Motivations can be racist, but facts cannot.
Anonymous, I completely agree with you, except that I still reserve that there is little actual proof that these discrepancies are due to inherent greater intelligence or capabilities, as opposed to environmental/cultural differences.
Off the top of my head, i would imagine the best way to investigate this question would be to study very young babies, which have been the least influenced by cultural, wealth and environmental differences and see if they exhibit any statistical differences.
The "concensus" of opinion amongst intelligence experts pegs "g" at least 50% hereditary, but only 50% (max) is nurture. Sorry if that upsets your boat. ;P
Is this the concensus of you and other members of your KKK chapter? Or you and your fellow alumni from Bob Jones University?
Are you saying that intelligence is 100% nurture? I'd sure like to see your proof.
I guess when science gets in the way, you feel free to ignore it, eh me?
It's all in the software, the 8088 will run it all... it just takes l-o-n-g-e-r.....
I'd clock chip your processor, me but I'd hate to overheat your motherboard.
Meanwhile I'm gonna start training today for the Boston Marathon. There's no inherent reason why I won't beat the Ethiopians.
I just gotta train real, real, real hard. Let's just hope I can fake the drug test...
Are you saying that intelligence is 100% nurture? I'd sure like to see your proof.
No, i just said there's no proof that race has any predictive value on inherent, natural intellilgence. If you argue otherwise, I'd sure like to see your proof.
...but I'm sure it is all reversable. All you need to do is environmentally isolate women in an environment that requires them to hunt and use their visula-spatial skills to survive for a couple of generations, and I'm sure that eventually, mother nature will breed a couple of Amazon mathematicians that can match an Ashkenazi Jew
Define "natural" intelligence. Is that the intelligence it takes use a commode or the intelligence it takes to produce a nuclear weapon?
Because you certainly cannot be implying that if it's the "latter" we can expect a West African nuclear device to be tested in the next decade.
My statement related to "g" aka "general intelligence.
I'll say again:
There's no proof that race has any predictive value on inherent, natural intellilgence. If you argue otherwise, I'd sure like to see your proof.
Your own contentions are baseless speculation.
Yes, black people and women can talk and do mathematics, even some very very advanced mathemetics. Did something I say lead you to believe that I didn't think they could? I'm just saying that those that can, don't currently exist in population proportions comparable to white males or Ashkenazi Jews. And the reason for that is that those who can't do advanced math vastly out reproduce those that can. And progressive liberalism ensures that these proportions actually deteriorate.
"Anonymous, I completely agree with you, except that I still reserve that there is little actual proof that these discrepancies are due to inherent greater intelligence or capabilities, as opposed to environmental/cultural differences."
You may be correct. I think cultural differences have a lot to do with it. I have also been told that blacks are simply better atheletes. I have no idea of this is true. It may be true, but again, I have no desire to prove it either way.
...and race and sex are extremely predictive of group intelligence (and other) test scores.
"I have no desire to prove it either way."
Precisely. Suppose one does prove tehse questions one way or antoher, then what? segregate by gender and race? what would one change in our society, would one actually argue that people should be treated differently based on the statistical aggregate of their race rather than their individual merits?
oh, another credible-looking citation from FJ. Lol.
Now conversely, what is the effect of enforcing equality of group representaion upon unequal groups.
You simply begin a race to the lowest common denominator...
btw - Don't tell me, you've got a "credible" source... only they haven't done the study yet. LOL!
They're still debating whether or not they can adapt those "erection detection devices" from the gay paedophilia studies to use as skull-caps to detect intelligent thoughts.
btw - Did you know that statistics was invented by one of the racist b*stard intelligence researchers?
No wonder statistics are sooooo incredible...
btw - there's a difference between "baseless" speculation, speculation, theory and science. One of these days, you should attempt to discover that distinction.
"Precisely. Suppose one does prove tehse questions one way or antoher, then what? segregate by gender and race? what would one change in our society, would one actually argue that people should be treated differently based on the statistical aggregate of their race rather than their individual merits?"
I think that is the fear and reason why people believe asking such questions is racist. It would also explain why racist groups are motivated to prove that one group is less intelligent than another. I suppose they need some kind of justification in calling themselves the master race. Again, the motivations behind the questions may be racist, but the questions in of and themsleves are not.
I suppose another question that can be asked is, does proving it either way have any benefits? Can any good come from this discussion? If not, then why talk about it?
but me just wants to make sure that the 80 IQ group is equally represented in jobs that require 120 IQ skills. I wonder how dumbed-down you have to make that job... Not to worry, I'll just put a few 130 IQ skill-types to work on the problem, only the current guy is an affirmative actioned 80 IQ group member, too....
Definition of affirmative action...
treating individuals differently based on the statistical aggregate of their race rather than their individual merits
13% of all brain surgeons should be black.
Make it so!
I suppose another question that can be asked is, does proving it either way have any benefits? Can any good come from this discussion? If not, then why talk about it?
I don't htink that's a good reason to not to investigations, generally. Sometimes you might discover
some benefits you didn't even know could come from the investigation. I'm not the fence about whether this research should be done -- it would give a lot of ammo to racists, eugenicists, etc.
but me just wants to make sure that the 80 IQ group is equally represented in jobs that require 120 IQ skills. I wonder how dumbed-down you have to make that job...
well, first of all, to be a lawyer, you have to pass the bar. to be a doctor, you ahve to pass the license exam. end of story. you know what they call the guy who graduated last in his class in med. school? "Doctor."
More importantly, i think both IQ and intelligence is at least somewhat malleable.
My point is that i have yet to see any proof that ceteris paribus, an average Asian person is inherently smarter than a white person, or whatever other combination you want to create. STudies show differences in average IQ, but few of them can answer as to whether these differences come from inhereted characeristics, or cultural/economic/environmental ones.
I think it's completely possible that each race has, inherently, the same normal distribution of intelligence as any other.
We only need to look to FJ to see that white males can be extremely stupid.
I think it's completely possible that each race has, inherently, the same normal distribution of intelligence as any other.
Well, your right about that...they all have a normal distribution...only the means are centered about 15 IQ points lower for blacks...and 2.5 lower for girls like me.
btw - if you want to see the Asian difference, just walk into the Engineering Department.
...and me probably wonders why the standards keep getting lower and lower to get into law school.
Did you know that the Maryland Praxis teachers certification exam only screens out the bottom ~5% of test takers? Did you know that since they can't find enough qualified teachers in the state, they recruit minority teachers from the Phillipines to fill their "affirmative action" set-aside slots?
Need more teachers? Only screen out the bottom 3%...
...and then they wonder why the kids can't learn...
Thanks for proving, once again, that you neither understand basic statistics nor have basic reading comprehension skills.
Further, for the umpteenth time, you have provided no evidence that these differing scores are results of inherent, "genetic" or "inherited" racial differences, as opposed to cultural/economic/environmental differences.
Maybe women do have lower IQ on the average, FJ, but as anon said: "Even if it is true what men, on average, have higher I.Q.'s than women, this cannot tell us that Man A will have a higher I.Q. than Woman A."
And i think the evidence is in. So, please, shut your ignorant piehole.
...so much for the "nurture" theory of intelligence. Killed by affirmative action. Stupid is as stupid does.
btw - a BS from a HBCU is about the equivalent of a HS diploma from a high performing suburban HS.
But if Random Woman A meets Random Man A... put your money on the man to have the higher IQ. It always pays to be the "house".
...so much for the "nurture" theory of intelligence. Killed by affirmative action. Stupid is as stupid does.
btw - a BS from a HBCU is about the equivalent of a HS diploma from a high performing suburban HS.
What are you talking about? I really don't understand why you are disputing what i say - I am an ashkenazi jew. bow down! LOL
You must be running on the "lite" side of your mean, then me. Are you the inbred cousin? Get dropped, maybe?
It's a shame you don't have much of a sense of guilt, me. Had you been raised properly, your IQ would probably be 3-5 points higher.
Nietzsche, "Genealogy of Morals"
At this point, I can no longer avoid setting out, in an initial, provisional statement, my own hypothesis about the origin of “bad conscience.” It is not easy to get people to attend to it, and it requires them to consider it at length, to guard it, and to sleep on it. I consider bad conscience the profound illness which human beings had to come down with, under the pressure of the most fundamental of all the changes which they experienced—that change when they finally found themselves locked within the confines of society and peace. Just like the things water animals must have gone though when they were forced either to become land animals or to die off, so events must have played themselves out with this half-beast so happily adapted to the wilderness, war, wandering around, adventure—suddenly all its instincts were devalued and “disengaged.”
From this point on, these animals were to go on foot and “carry themselves”; whereas previously they had been supported by the water. A terrible heaviness weighed them down. In performing the simplest things they felt ungainly. In dealing with this new unknown world, they no longer had their old leader, the ruling unconscious drives which guided them safely. These unfortunate creatures were reduced to thinking, inferring, calculating, bringing together cause and effect, reduced to their “consciousness,” their most impoverished and error-prone organ! I believe that on earth there has never been such a feeling of misery, such a leaden discomfort—while at the same time those old instincts had not all at once stopped imposing their demands! Only it was difficult and seldom possible to do their bidding. For the most part, they had to find new and, as it were, underground satisfactions for them.
All instincts which are not discharged to the outside are turned back inside. This is what I call the internalization of man. From this first grows in man what people later call his “soul.” The entire inner world, originally as thin as if stretched between two layers of skin, expanded and extended itself, acquired depth, width, and height, to the extent that the discharge of human instinct out into the world was obstructed. Those frightening fortifications with which the organization of the state protected itself against the old instincts for freedom—punishment belongs above all to these fortifications—made all those instincts of the wild, free, roaming man turn backwards, against man himself. Enmity, cruelty, joy in pursuit, in attack, in change, in destruction—all those turned themselves against the possessors of such instincts. That is the origin of “bad conscience.”
The man who lacked external enemies and opposition and was forced into an oppressive narrowness and regularity of custom, impatiently tore himself apart, persecuted himself, gnawed away at himself, grew upset, and did himself damage—this animal which scraped itself raw against the bars of its cage, which people want to “tame,” this impoverished creature, consumed with longing for the wild, had to create in itself an adventure, a torture chamber, an uncertain and dangerous wilderness, this fool, this yearning and puzzled prisoner, was the inventor of “bad conscience.” With him was introduced the greatest and weirdest illness, from which human beings up to the present time have not recovered, the suffering of man from his humanness, from himself, a consequence of the forcible separation from his animal past, a leap and, so to speak, a fall into new situations and living conditions, a declaration of war against the old instincts, on which, up to that point, his power, joy, and ability to inspire fear had been based.
Let us at once add that, on the other hand, the fact that there was now an animal soul turned against itself, taking sides against itself, provided this earth with something so new, profound, unheard of, enigmatic, contradictory, and portentous, that the picture of the earth was fundamentally changed. In fact, it required divine spectators to approve the dramatic performance which then began and whose conclusion is not yet in sight, a spectacle too fine, too wonderful, too paradoxical, to be allowed to play itself out senselessly and unobserved on some ridiculous star or other. Since then man has been included among the most unexpected and most thrillingly lucky rolls of the dice in the game played by Heraclitus’ “great child,” whether he’s called Zeus or chance. In himself he arouses a certain interest, tension, hope, almost a certainty, as if something is announcing itself in him, is preparing itself, as if the human being were not the goal but only the way, an episode, a great promise . . .
Who says being sexually "repressed" is all bad...oh, yeah. You.
I think the point is that when looking at job applications, or school admissions, these things are not done by random selection. Considering they are not done by random selection, each individual must be judged on his or merit. The fact that a certain group may have different qualities as a whole, does not undermine individual merit. If it is true that men have higher I.Q.'s, it may partly explain why more men are engineers in the aggregate, but engineers are not chosen in the aggregate. Therefore it would not make sense to overlook woman that apply for the college of engineering. In fact, I remember being told that a woman holds the highest I.Q. ever recorded. I cannot remember her name, but I may be able to dig up some old notes and find it.
Her name is Marilyn vos Savant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant
FJ, in the battle of me vs. you, my LSAT scored has prevailed. the end.
It's too bad Jews are already over-represented in Law firms. I hear they need a few Jewish custodians though. Good luck in the job search. Your law degree won't help you when your potential boss looks to meet his EEO goa He'll be looking for an under-represented Hispanic.
...but take heart. Under EEO, the custodial field is wide open to Jews. I'm sure you'll have no trouble getting that useless law degree paid off.
Ah, yes, Kight Wing Insult #52, "you're bad at your job and whatever you do."
Don't worry your boorish little head about my job prospects and how useful my degree is. Stick to the discussion. Please, open your mouth and resume embarrassing yourself.
Anon, thanks for this factoid. I had no idea. Fascinating.
But really, I am concerned about your future job prospects. Your investing tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars into an occupational field already grossly over-represented by Jews. Under EEO, who could possibly hire you or any other Jew? I sure hope you have the financial wherewithal to start your own legal practice, otherwise you're simply wasting your time pursuing a law degree. There's simply no room in the corporate legal profession for another Jew.
But like I said before, take heart. There aren't very many Jews in the hospitality or custodial industries. You might consider a change in majors, before it's too late. After all, the government knows best about who's qualified to perform which jobs. And to get enough "qualified" applicants, all they need do is lower the BAR. Good luck!
I don't suppose you've ever seen an EEO Report. It would appear that the best fields for you at the moment would be "protective services" or "para-legal". They're probably hiring your "type". Course, you'd have to agree to be classified as "white" and not "Jewish" to probably get into the "para-legal" field. Enjoy!
LOL, you really are mentally challenged, aren't you? Or does it hurt so bad to know that i'll be earning more money per year straight out law school, nay, in a few weeks when i start my summer at my firm, than you've ever earned in your entire life (per year)?
And in case you live under a rock in 1930, "Jewish" is not a race, it's a religiion. We Jews are, in fact, "white," just like Arabs are. So, Jews are protected from discrimination by the 1st amendment, and discrimination on the basis of religion is subject to the same strict scrutiny legal test as race.
I gotta feelin' that within another fifty years or so of EEO enforcement, they'll finally reach their goal of having 13% of all US lawyers being black.
Of course, all it will take for a black to qualify for a law degree and pass the BAR will be a HS diploma. Probably only 50% can get one now...
btw - 94% of lawyers in the USA are "white". Boy do we need AA in the legal profession. It is sooooooo discriminatory!
I thought you said you were Jewish? Isn't that a religion? Didn't you also deny the Jewish religion... "as an atheist,"
So is it a religion or a race? I'm confused. Are you a Jew, or not?
Affirmative action doesn't discriminate, but it does "prefer". So don't worry, you won't be discriminated against. You just won't be "preferred". You can have the job provided they don't "prefer" to hire someone else, by government order or "voluntary" corporate commitment to racial diversity.
The work of a bricklayer goes to the blue.
The knack of a mason outlasts a moon.
The hands of a plasterer hold a room together.
The land of a farmer wishes him back again.
Singers of songs and dreamers of plays
Build a house no wind blows over.
The lawyers--tell me why a hearse horse snickers
hauling a lawyer's bones.
Well, genius, you can't take the bar in most places without first going to law school. Where we need affirmative action is in law school admissions.
Anyway, old man, i think it's time for your nap.
...all you need to do is lower the admission standards. That way you could easily double or even triple the number of qualified minority applicants.
Because unless you do that, they'll simply flunk out. Of course, you could also develop a "special" African Oral-Law curricilum and put an *asterisk* next to their JD*s.
I give that idea about six months into the next presidential Democrats term before becoming a reality. An Hispanic JD* will probably be forthcoming too.
Because unless you do that, they'll simply flunk out.
Well, none of the black or hispanic people I know flunked out. In fact, they all have prestigious jobs like mine.
You are a virulent racist. I'm amazed you exist.
Here's some more fodder for your racism (maybe?): Theodore Wells, who defended Scooter Libby, is black.
So. Condie Rice is black. What's your point?
Are you trying to allude to something, me. Don't be affeared. Say it.
Black Nobel Prize winners...
Dr. Ralph J. Bunche was the first black man to receive the distinguished prize for his work as a United Nations mediator; his efforts led to the 1949 Arab-Israeli armistice agreement.
ten other remarkable Blacks have received a Nobel: Albert John Luthuli, 1960 Peace Prize; Martin Luther King Jr., 1964 Peace Prize; Sir William Arthur Lewis, 1979 Economics Prize; Bishop Desmond Tutu, 1984 Peace Prize; Wole Soyinka, 1986 Literature Prize; Derek Walcott, 1992 Literature Prize; Toni Morrison, 1993 Literature Prize; Nelson Mandela, 1993 Peace Prize, Kofi Annan 2001 Peace Prize and Wangari Maathai, 2004.
Nope, still no "physics" winners...
betcha I could fing a truck load of Ashkenazi's...
Bert, our friend FJ, in his senility, wrote:
"...all you need to do is lower the admission standards. That way you could easily double or even triple the number of qualified minority applicants.
Because unless you do that, they'll simply flunk out. "
Evidently, FJ thinks that minorities will simply flunk out of law school if you don't lower the admissions standards. In fact, this doesn't even seem to make logical sense, since lowering the admissions standards would have no effect on whether people flunk out if you don't also lower the grading standards.
My point was that there are in fact highly intelligent and qualified black lawyers (Condi is not a lawyer). Meaning, they didn't "flunk out."
Are you defending FJ's ridiculous racism, Bert?
What's your point, FJ?
Isn't there a KKK meeting you should be attending? or david duke's radio show you should be listening to, or something?
Jews and Intelligence
100% CA Senators 1996
17% Nobel Physiology and Medicine
85% College age Jews in college 16% Time Most Important 25
76% Most influential intellectuals
(Alan Dershowitz)
15% MacArthur "Genius" Awards 1981-97
60% Yale Grad students
15% Time 20 20th Century Inventors
60% Top Hollywood positions
(60 min)
15% USA Today College Academic Team
40% Lawyers at best NY and DC law firms
14% Clinton Cabinet 1997
20-30% Westinghouse Science Prize 11% Nobel Physics Prize
30% Faculty at elite colleges 10% Pulitzer 1997
30% Supreme Court Law Clerks
10% US Senate
27% Ivy League Survey
10% US college faculty
26% US Law Professors
(Volokh UCLA)
7.7% Corporate Boards
25% ACM Turing Award
7% Forbes HiTech 100 1997
23% Wealthiest Americans
3.0% US Voters 1996
23% Top 100 wealthy Canadians 2.0% US Population
17% Boston Symphony Strings 0.25% World Population
(1) Still doesn't prove that it's genetic, since (1) Jews are not a race, people can convert in and out, and (2) you provide no proof that it's genetic. simple as that.
(2) But, according to your own logic, if you believe it (I don't) you should bow down, because I am in fact an Ashkenazi Jew. You're not being internally consistent.
Scooter Libby got convicted. Why didn't you use someone like Thurgood Marshall?
Scooter Libby got convicted. Why didn't you use someone like Thurgood Marshall?
Indeed he did. Racists like FJ could say that Scooter Libby got convicted because his lawyer was black, and therefore less competent.
Like I said, more "fodder"/"proof" for FJ's ridiculous racism.
Are you a Jew? You never answered the question. You've self-identified as being Jewish (supposedly a religion) yet also self-identified as an atheist. You're not being internally consistent...
I'm an atheist Jew. I have jewish heritage, jewish relatives, jewish cultural practices.
I'm a Jew like I would be Polish. Is Polish a race? Not really.
1) For Jewishness to not have a genetic component, you have to prove that 100% of Jews had converted.
2) And I would only be required to bow down to you if I thought intelligence somehow made you "superior". But I think it's pretty obvious who the superior one is in this discussion. And it ain't ewe.
You said it was a religion. What does religion have to do with your GENETIC and cultural heritage? LOL!
...and thank you for conceding my genetic link to Judaism
1) For Jewishness to not have a genetic component, you have to prove that 100% of Jews had converted.
100% of the original jews in fact did convert to Judaism. And people have converted in and out for hundreds of years. In fact, since the lineage is passed down through the mother only, you can have a completely non-Jewish father, fully HALF of the genes involved, and still be called a Jew.
And please, can you make the same argument regarding French, German, Polish people and their genetics?
Tell me, FJ, what did you get on the LSAT? Or any standardized test you ever took? What percentile were you in? Then we'll see who's smarter. And don't lie just cause you know you're going to lose.
I scored whatever you got plus 3 points.
But no, I never scored high enough to qualify for MENSA. I only scored high enough to be able to make a fool out of you.
In other words, if you're going to separate the "genetic ethnic group" of Ashkenazi Jews out of "white" and consider its accomplishments, shouldn't you similarly separate out French, German, Russian, Polish ethnic groups, or perhaps in more general ways, Scandinavian, Slavic, Mediterranean, Germanic ethnic groups?
Further, then, it seems completely ridiculous to compare these categories to "blacks" and "hispanics" and "asians," considering the diversity that exists within all of those groups.
And so then what about people who are half Peruvian, half Norwegian, or half Israeli have Bolivian (all real people I know)? Or hypothetical examples of half Indian, half Korean? Half Argentinian, half Mexican? Half Eritreian, half Nigerian? What to do with them?
Oh, FJ, it seems you're the one who's been made a fool of. My LSAT percentile gets me into MENSA, and with some wiggle room to boot. You have to get the 95the percentile or above.
But the EEOC doesn't draw such trivial distinctions in its laws and regulations. And each and every Affirmative Action Plan submitted (almost every American corporation) raises the "targets" for "preferring" the under-represented. These plans even require that jobs be "re-designed" (read lower the standards) so as to be able to create larger hiring pools from populations classified under these broad racial classifications.
Whereas the market place, if left alone, seems to do a pretty good job of finding the "right" people for the "right" jobs, matching physical and intellectual abilities... without any government interference. There may be "pay gaps". But perhaps there are also "performance gaps".
Trivial? you just spent a few dozen posts showing how it's not trivial.
The EEOC does not classify Jews as an underrepresented minority. so it's quite consistent.
The market place would do that in theory, but that completely denies the existence of racism and sexism. As much as you would like to promote otherwise, america is not a perfect meritocracy.
I never said America was a perfect meritocracy. But I think it has always been one of the most meritocratic places around.
And race isn't the sole basis of discrimination. Weight, dress, hair length, looks, personality, social skills... these are all factors that play into any preferance/discrimination decision.
Incidentally, FJ, I think you should move to India:
JAIPUR, India (Reuters) -- An Indian court ordered the arrest of Hollywood star Richard Gere on Thursday for kissing Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty at an AIDS awareness event this month saying it was an obscene act committed in public.
Gere's repeated kisses on Shetty's cheeks at an event to promote AIDS awareness in New Delhi sparked protests in some parts of India, mostly by Hindu vigilante groups, who saw it as an outrage against her modesty and an affront to Indian culture.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/
Movies/04/26/gere.arrest.reut/index.html
I never said America was a perfect meritocracy. But I think it has always been one of the most meritocratic places around.
Well, not always. Maybe always for WASPs. But yeah, now i would agree it is one of the more meritocratic places around. But simply being better than the rest isn't really good enough if it is still short of an attainable ideal, is it? It's like saying, "oh, we're the safest neighborhood in baghdad, we only have 3 suicide bombings per month" -- that's not good enough, it doesn't mean you shouldn't continue to strive for imporvement.
And race isn't the sole basis of discrimination. Weight, dress, hair length, looks, personality, social skills... these are all factors that play into any preferance/discrimination decision.
True. but we were talking about race and gender discrimination.
Whatever, FJ, you've said some INCREDIBLY racist things about black people here. It's shameful.
...that all just happen to be true.
You should read "The Bell Curve" by Richard Hernnstein and Charles Murray and learn just how much better the "intelligence" theory explains social outcomes than does the "discrimination" theory.
Bell Curve, as far as I know, is all based on data that does not make any claims on where the intelligence or lack thereof comes from - nature or nurture. It is data taken ex post, after the people have been brought up in various cultural economic and evnironmental settings.
You can't answer this point, you won't concede it. I've run circles around you, and it hurts, don't it, grandpa?
The truth has struck me blind...
Tennyson "Tiresias" (excerpt)
Then, in my wanderings all the lands that lie
Subjected to the Heliconian ridge
Have heard this footstep fall, altho’ my wont
Was more to scale the highest of the heights
With some strange hope to see the nearer God.
One naked peak—the sister of the Sun
Would climb from out the dark, and linger there
To silver all the valleys with her shafts—
There once, but long ago, five-fold thy term
Of years, I lay; the winds were dead for heat;
The noonday crag made the hand burn; and sick
For shadow—not one bush was near—I rose
Following a torrent till its myriad falls
Found silence in the hollows underneath.
There in a secret olive-glade I saw
Pallas Athene climbing from the bath
In anger; yet one glittering foot disturb’d
The lucid well; one snowy knee was prest
Against the margin flowers; a dreadful light
Came from her golden hair, her golden helm
And all her golden armor on the grass,
And from her virgin breast, and virgin eyes
Remaining fixt on mine, till mine grew dark
For ever, and I heard a voice that said
“Henceforth be blind, for thou hast seen too much,
And speak the truth that no man may believe.”
Son, in the hidden world of sight that lives
Behind this darkness, I behold her still
Beyond all work of those who carve the stone
Beyond all dreams of Godlike womanhood,
Ineffable beauty, out of whom, at a glance
And as it were, perforce, upon me flash’d
The power of prophesying—but to me
No power—so chain’d and coupled with the curse
Of blindness and their unbelief who heard
And heard not, when I spake of famine, plague
Shrine-shattering earthquake, fire, flood, thunderbolt,
And angers of the Gods for evil done
And expiation lack’d—no power on Fate
Theirs, or mine own! for when the crowd would roar
For blood, for war, whose issue was their doom,
To cast wise words among the multitude
Was flinging fruit to lions; nor, in hours
Of civil outbreak, when I knew the twain
Would each waste each, and bring on both the yoke
Of stronger states, was mine the voice to curb
The madness of our cities and their kings.
Who ever turn’d upon his heel to hear
My warning that the tyranny of one
Was prelude to the tyranny of all?
My counsel that the tyranny of all
Led backward to the tyranny of one?
This power hath work’d no good to aught that lives
And these blind hands were useless in their wars.
O therefore, that the unfulfill’d desire,
The grief for ever born from griefs to be
The boundless yearning of the prophet’s heart—
Could that stand forth, and like a statue, rear’d
To some great citizen, win all praise from all
Who past it, saying, “That was he!”
In vain!
...It not only makes nature vs nurture claims... it attempts to quantify them.
It also predicts a number of "social problems" that result from the stratification of intelligence... when the 150 IQ farm girl goes to Harvard and marry's the 165 IQ Genius grant winner... and they have kids.
The creation of "gated communities" and "Katrina zones".
The segregation of society by "intelligence".
The Bell Curve also presents studies meant to quantify the effects of nurture and environment. (Twins raised apart, etc) That nurture factor, unfortunately, does not weigh as heavily as the genetic component. Even the Flynn Effect is discussed. (IQ's increasing over time)
No, the Bell Curve simply assumes that:
1. Human Cognitive ability is a single general entity, depictable as a single number.
2. Cognitive ability has a heritability of between 40 and 80 percent and is therefore primarily genetically based.
3. IQ is essentially immutable, fixed over the course of a life span.
4. IQ tests measure how "smart" or "intelligent" people are and are capable of rank ordering people in a linear order.
5. IQ test can measure this accurately.
6. IQ tests are not biased with regard to race ethnic group or socioeconomic status.
...and explains why programs like "Head Start" only achieve temporary results.
You know what, FJ? It really doesn't matter what you think of the Bell Curve, because you're a racist, and a nasty, disgusting one at that. You're also a homophobe and a sexist. Now, you're free to belive whatever you want, and you've been highly entertaining, but i think i'm going to leave you now, you can twirl around in your cesspool all you want.
Why do I think you're a nasty disgusting racist? Who else would write something like this:
Because unless you do that, they'll simply flunk out. Of course, you could also develop a "special" African Oral-Law curricilum and put an *asterisk* next to their JD*s.
again, whether you chose to believe the 40 or 80 percent number depends upon which "studies" on feels better capture the genetic component (like the Minnesota Twin Study).
But in my absense, you can read about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
The_Bell_Curve#
American_Psychological_Association
_task_force_report
The APA is a modern joke.
Read this.
but even the members of the APA weren't as thick headed as you (from your link)...
Some of the task force's findings supported or were consistent with statements from The Bell Curve. They agreed that:
* IQ scores have high predictive validity for individual differences in school achievement.
*IQ scores have predictive validity for adult occupational status, even when variables such as education and family background have been statistically controlled.
*Individual differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by genetics.
*Individual differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by environment as well.
It's good to see that some politicians have seen the light.
Few are willing to climb the Heliconian ridge at noon to espy Athena naked in her bath. They are too ashamed. Tennyson, "Tiresias"
The noonday crag made the hand burn; and sick
For shadow—not one bush was near—I rose
Following a torrent till its myriad falls
Found silence in the hollows underneath.
There in a secret olive-glade I saw
Pallas Athene climbing from the bath
In anger; yet one glittering foot disturb’d
The lucid well; one snowy knee was prest
Against the margin flowers; a dreadful light
Came from her golden hair, her golden helm
And all her golden armor on the grass,
And from her virgin breast, and virgin eyes
Remaining fixt on mine, till mine grew dark
For ever, and I heard a voice that said
“Henceforth be blind, for thou hast seen too much,
And speak the truth that no man may believe.”
but as Nietzsche said in "Zarathustra",
"This is my morning, my day beginneth: arise now, arise, thou great noontide!"—
"The study also didn't prove that apes swing from the highest trees. Which makes me wonder why the studies author felt compelled to make a statement about what his study didn't conclude. Could it be yet another piece of evidence demonstrating the politicization of science?
"This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic [gay] males have a greater propensity to offend against children."
But it does conclude that when homosexual's (sic.) see little naked boys, many more catch wood at the sight..."
You're a horrible liar, Farmer John. You don't even know the study you cite and report only the selective quotations offered by right-wing Christianist groups such as Concerned Women For America, NARTH, etc.
Kurt Freund distinguished between child molesters attracted to children and males attracted to adults. He found that pedophiles who targeted boys aren't usually attracted to adult males, and that homosexuals who preferred adult males as sexual partners (whom Freund called androphiles) aren't attracted to male children in a greater extent than heterosexual men who preferred adult females as sexual partners (whom Freund called gynephiles) are attracted to female children. Because of that distinction, Freund and many other researchers came to the conclusion that typical homosexuals must not be look at when one's looking for the more typical boy molester. David Finkelhor, who has published studies on child molestation for more than 20 years, said men who molest boys are most usually either heterosexual males who are married and have a considerable history of heterosexual relationships or men who have no attraction whatsoever to adults of either gender (therefore hardly can they be compared to most gay men). Recently, another major researcher on child molestation, Gene Abel, published data showing that, among nearly 1050 self-admitted boy molesters who had answered the questionnaire he developed, 70% said they were heterosexual, and only 8% said they were exclusively homosexual.
Quotations of studies by Freund:
1. "These studies show that only rarely are sex offenders against male children diagnosed as androphiles [homosexual in adult orientation] and that phallometric diagnosis of gynophilic [heterosexual in adult orientation] and androphilic volunteers almost always corresponds to their claimed erotic preference."
2. "Findings indicate that homosexual males who preferred mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to female children."
Both of the above quotations comes from “Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and the erotic age preference”, a study by Kurt Freund Robin J. Watson, and Douglas Rienzo.
"Androphiles [homosexuals in adult orientationn] actually responded significantly less to the male children." (The above was the conclusion Freund and colleagues reached after comparing androphiles' and gynephiles' responses to children of both genderss.) Freund, Kurt; Heasman, Gerald; Racansky, I.G.; Glancy, Graham. “Pedophilia and heterosexuality vs. homosexuality.” Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10, no. 3 (1984): 193-200.
So, yes, in contrast to what you ignorantly and dishonestly alleged, Freund's conclusions that androphiles who have no reported history of sexual deviancy aren't more likely to be sexually interested in boys than gynephiles who have no reported history of sexual deviancy are to be sexually interested in girls came from the EMPIRICAL results of his reasearch.
Nietzsche criticized Christianity for its blatant use of "saint lies" - lies that are justified because of its moralistic intents. I criticize for the very same reason.
By the way, given that MANY self-identified heterosexuals engage in same-sex activities with adult males (nearly 70% of the men who reported having some only homosexual activities in the previous year, according to a study*, self-identified as heterosexual), there isn't a reason to believe men who molest boys are necessarily homosexual (and the data I have cited proves that often they are not).
* -> http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/145/6/416
In "Assessment of pedophilia", K. Freund measured the sexual attraction of homosexual and heterosexual men, with no reported history of sexual deviancy, to pictures depicting adults of both genders, adolescents (boys aged 15-16, girls aged 13-14) and small children (both boys and girls aged 9-11).
He found that both homosexual and heterosexual men were significantly more attracted to pictures depicting adults of their preferred gender than to pictures depicting adolescents or small children. About the arousal to the underaged categories, Freund found that the relative arousal of homosexual men to adolescent stimuli was slightly greater than the relative arousal of heterosexuals (attraction to adolescent males was 62% of the attraction of adult males in homosexual males; attraction to adolescent females was 57% of the attraction to adult females), while the relative arousal of heterosexual men to depictions of small female children (34% of their arousal to adult females) was MUCH greater than the relative arousal of homosexual men to depictions of small male children (only 19% of their arousal to adult males).
Note that the relative arousal of homosexual men to adolescent males was only 5% higher than the relative arousal of straight men to adolescent females (which can be explained the fact that adolescent boys depicted were older than the adolescent females), while the relative arousal of heterosexual men to small girls was 15% higher than the relative arousal of gay men to small boys. Heterosexual men's relative arousal to small children was almost THE DOUBLE of homosexual men's.
If anything, it was shown by Freund that normal heterosexual men are a much greater threat to small children than gay men (that was also the conclusion reached by Drs. Nicolas Groth and H. Jean Birnbaum).
F. John said: "Dishonest? The study wasn't structured to study the question. It was simply a test to see what gave homo's woodies."
A lie that proves that Farmer John is dishonest and doesn't know the study he cites. The study he cited measured the sexual arousal of child molesters who abused boys vs. child molesters who abused girls to underage stimuli. In contrast to the researches I cited above, the one he refeerred to does not deal with arousal patterns of normal homosexual and heterosexual men. As I said before, Kurt Freund himself stated, based on his findings in another research (which I quoted in the previous post) that RARELY boy molesters are androphiles (i.e. attracted to adult males) and later he demonstrated that his sample of androphiles felt no more attracted to small children than did his sample of gynephiles (i.e. attracted to adult females) - in fact, they appeared to be LESS attracted to small children. These results corroborate the assertion made by Dr. David Finkelhor (in his book "Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research") and Dr. Leslie Lothstein that men who attack boys are rarely homosexual in adult orientation (in fact, as also stated by Dr. David Finkelhor, and later proved by Dr. Eugene Abel and Dr. Nora Harlow, most boy molesters say they are heterosexual in their adult orientation, and they are usually married, widowed, etc.). Men who molest boys are mostly either heterosexual in adult orientation or men who feel no attraction to adults of either gender. Because of that, it is fallacious to conclude, as did Farmer John, that men who are attracted to MEN are more of a threat to children than men who are attracted to women.
Link to the study by Eugene Abel and Nora Harlow: www.childmolestationprevention.org/pdfs/study.pdf
Post a Comment