The Liberals claim that the world hates America and that anyone who supports America is doomed. Then John Howard goes on to win a decisive victory, Tony Blair is re-elected in historic fashion, Mexico and Canada move conservative and now France! Once again, it is as Bret Stephens wrote in the Wall Street Journal several years ago, that an historian looking for clues leading up to major events like the collapse of the Soviet Union or the end of the Japanese economic "juggernaut" would find (he says "most", I say all) contemporary journalism useless.
Why is the contemporary press so useless? Stephens says it's sloth, incompetence and ignorance. I say it's multiculturalism -- the desire to use their power to "prove" that America isn't special. They simply NEED to create a world where the Soviet Union is just as successful as America, where Japan beats us in capitalism and where the rest of the world hates us. It doesn't matter that it's not true because truth is meaningless to the Modern Liberal as proved by their adoration of Michael Moore, their silence in the face of Sandy Berger, their love of Bill Clinton and their embrace of the lie of "man-made" global warming.
Sarkozy's win is a HUGE victory for good which, of course, is while he'll be denounced as "Hitler" by those on the left who would have championed Hitler in any way against America for the sake of "multiculturalism." After all, you can't "impose" freedom on Europe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
436 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 436 Newer› Newest»I mean, just look at the way dora/me tries to treat people who aren't as "smart" as her. Her 97th% LSAT score... the way she points out everyone's "logic fallacies". She wants them to "bow down to her superior Ashkenazi intelligence".
And how she avoids every point you make that contradicts her argument. She thinks you're too "stupid" to notice.
She really thinks IQ is sumptin'! It's why she acts so "superior".
And of course, she loves to boast about her future employment prospects and the incredibly Huge salary she's likely to make.
I'd hate to call her an "elitist", but is it really THAT much different from being a "racist"?
I don't see much difference.
It's a certain way of acting "superior". And she's got the act down, pat!
Only in her case, it is ALL an act.
btw - dora/me... that's a dead link you posted. Course if you had half the brains you claim to have, you'd already know that.
Does dora/me treat everyone as an "equal"?
Does she show them the "respect" her idealogy would compel a non-hypocrite to show?
The very first actors in the tragedies at the Dionysian Festivals in Athens were called hypocrites.
I don't wonder "why".
Discrimination?
Yes, there's discrimination. Only it isn't on the basis of "skin color".
"Back to School"
Rodney: Why don't we go get a cup of coffee?
Sally: I'm sorry, I have to teach a class now.
Rodney: How about tomorrow?
Sally: I have class tomorrow too.
Rodney: ...well, then give me a call when you have no class!"
Look, Farmer John got drunk alone on Sat. night again...
oh, and btw
(1) I point out logical problems because logical problems help people build weak arguments.
(2) I don't want anyone to bow down to me because i'm Ashkenazi. But since YOU, FJ, think Ashkenazis are so superior, perhaps YOU (only) should bow down.
(3) The link I posted is not dead. You just have to select the text all the way out into the margin beyond where it looks like it's cut off. Try not to drunk-blog next time.
ad hominems again? How weak... soooooo weak....
(1) I point out logical problems because logical problems help people build weak arguments.
...and you sooo need help.
Here's one your "biggest" logic problem.
Avoidance
Are you allergic to addressing the points your opponents make, or deliberately dishonest? That was a rhetorical question...don't bother answering.
Shouldn't you be in church, or at some muslim-hate meeting?
What points do you want me to address?
Well for one, you could address how it is that racism is CURRENTLY so much worse than sexism, hedonism, look-ism, progressive liberal idealism, or any other -ism, and so still requires the government to positively intervene with FORCE in the one case, and not all others?
And second, perhaps you might also address how it is you know that the "discrimination" that blacks experience is ALL racism, and not some greater or cumulative combination of all these various other -ism's?
Looking forward, in advance, to your continued avoidance.
More evidence of racism in America
Bzzzzzz. Sorry. Watch your own videos. Address the point.
Well for one, you could address how it is that racism is CURRENTLY so much worse than sexism, hedonism, look-ism, progressive liberal idealism, or any other -ism, and so still requires the government to positively intervene with FORCE in the one case, and not all others?
By "worse" do you mean more prevalent and harmful? I don't see why the government would need to intervene, or even how it could intervene, with respect to hedonism or progressive liberal idealism. Racism and sexism are different "isms" from these other "isms." I don't understand how you are lumping them in together. Apples and oranges.
But this is the kind of inscrutable idiocy I have come to expect from you, bud.
...and thanks for finally putting your CS degree to good use by embedding some simple html in your response.
Why is the current apple worse than the current oranges?
Apples are illegal, but pears, grapes and tangerines are all legal. Why?
There must be something about apples that is CURRENTLY "worse" or more "harmful". What is it?
alar?
...and you define "worse". If it isn't worse, why is it illegal?
...or are you arguing AGAIN that all laws are simply random and have no "reasons". Is the 14th soon to be a dead letter law?
Racism and sexism are illegal because they are considered to be unfair discrimination, baseless, and they more easy to spot and therefore to punish than other "lookisms." Those are the two criteria you need to prohibit a discrimination. So, idealism and hedonism are not discriminations at all, they are completely different concepts. Lookism (based on beauty, symmetry of face, weight, etc) is extremely hard to patrol.
Ugh, FJ. You're so tedious. You're like Kirk Cameron trotting out the tired, verused watchmaker argument to prove god's existence. It's like, "really? you're so uninformed that you think what you're saying is some sort of brilliant insight?"
You're boring me.
Here's another video, about racist towns in America, which still exist today
I find it amusing that you think an HTML tag is "good use" of a CS degree. lol.
...how is it easier to spot? Is it really.
If I discriminate against an ugly girl, it's because she's a girl, and not because she's ugly?
Supporting logic?
...and it's more "unfair" to discriminate against girls, than ugle people?
Hence, sexism is illegal, but lookism isn't.
And we can only use laws to solve "easy" problems?
...and a little html may not exactly be "good use", but it beats "no use".
...as for baseless... is sex discrimination "baseless"?
If you discriminate against an ugly girl because she's ugly, then your office will have women in it, just not ugly ones. If your office has no women in it, it's going to be hard to claim that it's just simply that all the applicants that ever come to your company looking for work are good-looking men and ugly women.
It's not more unfair to discriminate on sex than on ugliness, but it is easier to patrol discrimination on sex. Why do we only use laws to solve "easy" problems? It's a balancing between how intrusive you want the government to be, and how bad the discrimination is.
When I got married, I hate to admit, I discriminated against a LOT of ugly girls... over 3 billion, in fact.
Of course, I refused to even interview guys for the position. I know... what a homophobe. You'd think I WANTED to have children of my own or something...
I find that hard to believe. Why would a beautiful woman marry a man like you?
See, again, you think you're being so clever. Anti-discrimination laws only apply to running your business, employment, housing, various PUBLIC things, not your private life.
Can ugly women sue Hollywood shows like "Desperate Housewives" or "Sex in the City"? I think the discrimination is pretty blatant and obvious, don't you?
Why can't fat women be airline stewards/stewardesses?
Not too many ugly women lifeguards on Baywatch.
Not too many handicapped quarterbacks in the NFL
...but having black NFL coaches... THAT is something the law needs to address. Why?
You know the answers to all your questions. You're driving towards the point that some characteristics are inherent to the job. The point of disagreement, however, is (1) what some people think is necessary for a job is not necessarily necessary for it, and (2) how are these characteristics acquired (this is what is known, in part, as institutional discrimination).
Ugh, I grow tired of your insolence.
Yet majority black NBA basketball teams require no diversity. Why?
...Do some jobs require more intelligence than others?
Why are 98% of ALL lawyers white? Are lawyers discriminating?
If not, why not?
Look, we've already been through this. Of course some jobs require more intelligence than others. So you will say taht black people have lower IQs than white people, so it's perfectly appropriate to discriminate against them. And i will say that IQ is not necessary nature, but more nurture. Then you will cite the Bell Curve. then I will cite the criticisms of it. and so on.
this is boring.
98% of lawyers are white? See, you say things like that, and you prove that some white people (read: you) are really dumb.
Is IQ important to becoming a lawyer?
FJ, please make your new points. I am not interested in hearing a rehashing of your standard argument. If you have anything new to add, sure. Otherwise, what's the point?
ccording to 1990 US Census Statistics 94% of lawyers are white. There were 746,000 lawyers in the USA and only 25,300 black lawyers. Thats barely 3%. Isn't this, according to your "easy to spot" argument evidence of BLATANT racial discrimination in the legal profession?
Well, you dimwit, according to the 2000 Census, 89% of all lawyers are white.
Blacks make up about 4% of law school attendees, and they make up 3.9% of lawyers, according to the 2000 Census. But , if you think there is no discrimination against black attorneys, you'd be wrong.
...and it's "racial" discrimination, NOT "IQ" discrimination that's responsible for the non-proportional representation of African Americans in the legal profession... right???
Sounds like a remedy is in order ESPECIALLY if only 4% of law students are African American.
The Universities must be REALLY discriminating against African Americans then, right dora???
They say that 60% of all college undergraduate degrees are being awarded to women. Isn't this BLANTANTLY OBVIOUS evidence of Sexism?
To go to law school, you have to graduate from college. Blacks have a much lower college graduation rate than whites. To go to college, you have to graduate from high school. Only half of blacks graduate from high school.
It all comes back down to the same things we've been talking about.
They say that 60% of all college undergraduate degrees are being awarded to women. Isn't this BLANTANTLY OBVIOUS evidence of Sexism?
Why do you think this is?
...and what things are those?
Only HALF of blacks graduate from high school!!!!
And since the Government runs the public high schools, the Government is OBVIOUSLY the worst perpetuator of RACIAL discrimination, RIGHT?
And since the political "liberals" constitute the overwhelming majority of faculty members and administrators that run the colleges and universities, teacher unions, and government unions, PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS are obviously the WORST RACIAL DISCRIMINATORS on the planet! Right???
Oh don't get all excited. Calm down.
The things we've been talking about? X-whatever explains all of black people's problems with "the victicrat mentality." You expain it with their "inferior IQs."
I've been saying that it's many things: past discrimination, past disenfranchisement, current discrimination, current racism, of the overt, covert and institutional kinds. I never said it was ALL because of CURRENT discrimination. You're fighting a windmill. Current discrimination is a significant part, a large part, but it's not all.
I just don't understand you -- are you saying that the reason black people have lower incomes, lower high school and college graduation rates, higher poverty rates, higher out of birth wedlock rates, higher crime rates, higher incarceration rates, lower life expectancy, it's all because they're simply less intelligent than white people?
no, no, no. Not past discrimination. Past RACIAL discrimination. Not current discrimination... current RACIAL discrimination. Those are YOUR arguments as to what accounts for black misery.
As for mine, Yep. The Bell Curve correlates ALL those social maladies you mention to IQ.... based soley upon a WHITE population, and THEN factors IN the Black population to see the affect "race" has on the numbers... with very little change in the measured statistical correlation factors.
IQ can "explain" them all.
The Bell Curve also controls for "external factors" such as Socio-Economic Status (SES)... and shows that these factors are almost "insignificant" by comparison to the role IQ plays in ANY American's eventual success.
That's... insane. Was that part of the indoc?
Current anti-discrimination laws focus on the OBVIOUS differences and ignore the UN-obvious differences between people.
Instead of remedying problems, they extend and aggravate them. Not very good social policy. Terrible law.
You know the very definition of insane? Doing the same things over and over and expecting DIOFFERENT results.
Progressives are the INSANE ones.
Fj, the mid-19th century is calling, it wants its racial stereotypes back...
Unbelievable. And then "xkvsxe" will tell me that there's very little racism in America.
This is phenomenal.
The law doesn't care about "other" reasons or types of discrimination... it attributes ALL statistically measured differences in outcomes to RACIAL discrimination.
I guess most lawyers are terrible with numbers and statistics. Good thing you aren't, right dora?
If the shoe fits... then you gots to where it.
Otherwise I've demonstrated just WHO the BIGGEST RACISTS really are... progressive liberals.
The liberals run the government that educates Blacks and causes HALF of them to drop out. They run the government employee unions and teachers unions that only accept 4% of blacks into Law Schools. They are by FAR the greater number of tenured college administrators and professors.
Either you're a BIGOT, dora, OR blacks don't have the same distribution of IQ's. Which is it?
...Why hasn't the "performance gap" in schools, narrowed after fifty years of trying? Why, dora, why?
...cause either their "progressive" loving teachers HATE and DISCRIMINATE against black kids and prevent them from getting a decent education OR the kids simply aren't performing. Which is it, dora dear?
I'm not going to debate with you on this topic. Your views speak for themselves, they need no commentary.
Avoidance. Thanks for proving my points again and again.
Disputed facts. Zero.
It's hard to argue with the truth.
I would not argue with someone who claimed that Jews are responsible for all the world wars. There would not be any "disputed facts" in that case either.
I am familiar how banks work, how loans work, how economics work. It's not just that, there is actual discrimination.
Apparently you do not have a clue how the work. You think they the work against black people, which is ridiculous. You have some absurd idea that a bunch of white lenders decide not to loan money to people simply because they are black. Banks work to make money. Stop living in the 1960's and join the rest of us in the year 2007.
xkvsxe,
(1) Have you ever studied economics?
(2) How do you square your claims that racism is a thing of the past with the existence of people like Farmer John? Mr. John here is not a backwater yokel, he's a college graduate, an retired officer in the army. Lived in Spain for 3 years -- worldly, exposed, etc.
Why don't you just agree with FJ and come out and say it, that you think the reason that black people "just happen to be" more likely to have teen pregnancy, commit crime, not graduate from high school, and be susceptible to democrat propaganda
I have listed all the reasons. It has to do with personal responsibility. If you view everyone as an individual, instead of as racial groups, then your whole foundation is nonsensical. You want to break people up into racial groups.
The fact is that the teen pregnancy rate was much lower in the 1960's than it is today. Blacks commit more crime today than they did in the 1960's. Are you going to argue that racism is worse today than it was in the past? You really have not offered any evidence to support your position. Instead, you point out how successful your black friends are, which is the entire point. Those that work hard and make good choices will be successful and racism is not going to prevent that.
How about this for some good old fashion racism.
http://johnlocke.org/site-docs/audio/kambon5.mp3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn3qH6V5tOY
(1) Have you ever studied economics?
Yes I have.
(2) How do you square your claims that racism is a thing of the past with the existence of people like Farmer John?
I never said it did not exist. I said it would stop anyone from being successful. Please tell how the words of Farmer John have made black people commit crime. Please tell me how they have denied anyone a college education.
xkvsxe,
... i'm not sure how your response connects to my questions.
I have listed all the reasons. It has to do with personal responsibility. If you view everyone as an individual, instead of as racial groups, then your whole foundation is nonsensical. You want to break people up into racial groups.
um... so then how can we have any statistics? This is a non-answer. You talk about personal responsibility, viewing everyone as an individual -- does this mean we can't even talk about statistics about % blacks living poverty vs. the same for whites, for example?
You didn't answer my question at all. Tell me, how can you square the existence of people with views like those of Farmer John's with your statement "Those that work hard and make good choices will be successful and racism is not going to prevent that." Suppose you end up led by Farmer John, he is your commanding officer. He's clearly prejudiced against black people. You think this will have absolutely no effect on his black soldiers' advancement, how he treats them, who he recommends for various jobs, various medals, etc.? and it's not like in the army, you can choose who your commanding officer is...
um... so then how can we have any statistics?
We do have statistics. We have this percentage of the population in poverty, this percentage committing crime, and so on. You are the one that is making a big deal about the racial groups. It is the other factors that make the difference, such as crime, gangs, and all the other things I have listed, not race.
With the lenders for example, a bank is going to approve a loan based on the ability to repay that loan, not based on someone race. The bank is going to look at each person on an individual basis.
If Mr. John does anything wrong someone can take it up with a higher authority. In fact, the military supports affirmative action. There are things that can be done. I do not know why you will not answer my simple question. What percentage of white people do you believe are racist?
Anyway, Mr. John as nothing on Dr. Kamau Kambon.
Please tell how the words of Farmer John have made black people commit crime. Please tell me how they have denied anyone a college education.
Imagine a world of Farmer johns. When deciding who to promote, he always promotes the non-black. When deciding who to commend, who to give opportunities to, who to allow to live in his apartment buildings, who to fire, who to hire, who to serve, who to give a raise to, who to arrest, who to defend in court, and on and on and on and on, it's most often to the disadvantage of blacks. You don't think that all those individual, separate decisions add up into a trend, a societal modus operandi that has an effect on the disadvantaged group, both economic and psychological? I'm not saying this excuses any criminal -- i know you love to distort what i'm saying into an excuse or some sort of direct causality, btu that's not waht I'm saying.
What i AM saying is that this makes it more likely that blacks are born into less advantageous situations than their white counterparts, and it makes it more difficult for them tthan for their white counterparts to get out of these less advantageous situations.
I mean, you conservatives love to talk about, for example on the issue of gay marriage and gay adoption, about how important it is for a child to have a father and a mother, not just two mothers or two fathers. In that situation, you guys cannot stress enough how external factors have effects on people, how they grow up, whether they will have behavioral problems, etc. Same argument for women staying at home with children -- that the daycare environment has profound negative effects on children.
But with the very same situation with black people, it's all "personal responsibility," as if any random black person who is born into a poorer family, that lives in a worse, poorer more crime-ridden neighborhood is JUST AS metnally healthy enough, wtih respect to your self esteem and motivation, is just as capable of graduating high school as someone who was born into a mansion in Greenwich, CT. This is not inherent, nature-given capability i'm talking about, this is environmentally-affected capability.
Have you ever lived somewhere really despairing and ugly, with crime, poverty, problems, hate, pain, and ugliness aroudn you? I did recently for only a few days, and it has a profound effect on me, because i realized how much these things can affect your motivation, your outlook, your mindset, all the things you need to pull yourself up, to motivate yourself to perform, to create, to complete.
Now, as a black person, you are most likely faced with a historical handicap: because of past discriminatino, it is much less likely that your parents have accumulated wealth, that they graduated from college, that they have high-earning jobs. Plus, you are faced with the current handicap of ongoing racism and discrimination.
And you think that every black person should just be able to overcome both of those things, to compensate for them in addition to what is needed to achieve success, to the point of bringing the statistics up to par with white people?
With the lenders for example, a bank is going to approve a loan based on the ability to repay that loan, not based on someone race. The bank is going to look at each person on an individual basis.
Yes, in theory. You're assuming that all economic actors are perfectly rational actors. that assumption is fine in beginning economics, but it's simply not reflective of reality. many economists have earned a good living trying to figure out how people ACTUALLY act, because they are not necessarily rational. People who study stock market crashes, economic crashes, they try to figure out why people act directly against their own interests.
We all know who's responsible for holding the black man down, dora. It isn't the farmers. It's the government union workers, the teachers unions, the high school teachers the university admissions offices and the Ashkenazi lawyers who only allow 4% of blacks to become lawyers.
DeNile isn't only a river in Egypt. It's the land in which dora lives all day, every day.
And those are the UNCONTESTED facts we discussed.
xkvsxe, there's a difference between Dr. Kamau and anti-black racists. You know what that difference is? Some anti-black racists are senators, say things like, we shoulda elected Strom Thurmond, some are congresspoeople, quoting KKK leaders on the house floor.
What power does Dr. Kamau have? Nothing.
Farmer John, i'm not going to contest your facts. I wouldn't if you said the holocaust was a lie or that george bush is a lizard either.
You know, remember when Chirac refused to debate Le Pen? ... this is kind of the same. Your views don't deserve consideration, don't deserve a response.
Imagine a world of Farmer johns.
We do not have a world of Farmer Johns though. We could also imagine a world run by the KKK, but we simply do not live in that world. We live in a world where 94% of Americans say they would vote for a black president. We live in a world where Don Imus gets fired for telling a bad and racist joke. We live in a world where Michael Richards has to go on a two week apology tour with Al Sharpton for using the N word. We live in a world where racism is simply not acceptable both in the private sector and in the public sector, because discrimination is illegal by law.
It appears that what you are getting at, is the a minority population will always experience rampant racism by the majority, regardless of how the majority of the majority feel.
Now, as a black person, you are most likely faced with a historical handicap: because of past discriminatino...
I can agree that past discrimination has an effect in the current state of blacks, but I simply do not believe the evidence supports your view that racism is currently rampant. I think all the evidence supports the exact opposite.
Your solution to rectify the wrongs of the past is to do what? Give them more government handouts?
Imagine a world of Farmer johns. When deciding who to promote, he always promotes the non-black.
He always promotes the best performer. He doesn't promote the black man simply becuase he black.
When deciding who to commend, who to give opportunities to, who to allow to live in his apartment buildings, who to fire, who to hire, who to serve, who to give a raise to, who to arrest, who to defend in court, and on and on and on and on, it's most often to the disadvantage of blacks.
He gives them to those who deserve them, not the black man first and then dispersing from there.
You don't think that all those individual, separate decisions add up into a trend, a societal modus operandi that has an effect on the disadvantaged group, both economic and psychological?
You don't think passing over the truly deserving in favor of the black skinned guy doesn't have an effect? Society has been doing this since 1964, 43 years, and the situation has only gotten worse. It used to be that many more black youngsters graduated from high school. Now only 50% do.
I'm not saying this excuses any criminal -- i know you love to distort what i'm saying into an excuse or some sort of direct causality, btu that's not waht I'm saying.
No, your just saying that race is the only consideration useful in deciding who deserves hiring, firing, promoting, and penalizing. And if they aren't promoted/hired, it's not because the black person didn't deserve the advancement. It's because of racism.
Some anti-black racists are senators, say things like, we shoulda elected Strom Thurmond, some are congresspoeople, quoting KKK leaders on the house floor.
You mean people like Al Gore's campaign manager Donna Brazile, who said "A white boy attitude is, 'I must exclude, denigrate and leave behind.' They don't see it or think about it. It's a culture." That is not to mention all the power Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson have.
I mean, xkvsxe, you're basically saying that racism is only KKK-style, all out rampant, out in the open racism. You're completely denying that covert, silent racism can exist, that people can say on a poll that they would vote for black president, but they can still make half-conscious or fully conscious racist decisions in life.
Here is an article from Pew addressing exactly your point about Obama and the polls on black candidates. The article says things are better now, but that:
"Problems with pre-election polls in several high-profile biracial elections in the 1980s and early 1990s raised the question of whether covert racism remained an impediment to black candidates. White candidates in most of these races generally did better on Election Day than they were doing in the polls, while their black opponents tended to end up with about the same level of support as the polls indicated they had."
It used to be that many more black youngsters graduated from high school. Now only 50% do.
Please provide a cite.
No, your just saying that race is the only consideration useful in deciding who deserves hiring, firing, promoting, and penalizing. And if they aren't promoted/hired, it's not because the black person didn't deserve the advancement. It's because of racism.
No, that's not what i'm saying at all. But why would I expect anything less that this kind of bs distortion from you?
Have you developed a little crush on me, FJ? I wasn't even talking to you. Your one-trick-pony race-related antics are quite boring, you know.
Have you proved that racism and not some other ism is the problem facing Black America. Nope. Will you? Nope. You simply "allege". And when we look into specific cases like the 4% representation of blacks in the legal profression... You simply shrug it off. You can't explain why. And if you can't explain why, then you don't know.
dora, you don't know. Your all "wind".
How much power do you think Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have, considering they are constantly assailed by the rgiht, and are not actually in any office?
Blah blah blah.
Shouldn't you be at a eugenicist meeting or something?
Get over it, FJ, i'm not engaging your arguments.
xkvsxe,
A losing candidate's campaign manager (note, not the candidate himself), vs a senator and a congressman? Who do you think is more prominent, has a bigger stage, has more power?
And i could keep going with the congresspeople. Did you hear about what Virgil Goode said vis-a-vis Muslims?
at 10:03am this morning, YOU posted...
To go to law school, you have to graduate from college. Blacks have a much lower college graduation rate than whites. To go to college, you have to graduate from high school. Only half of blacks graduate from high school.
Is that sufficient a cite?
So, the Census as usual has statitiscs on the topic. This is % of people 25 years old or older who have a high school diploma, by race:
Both Sexes .White .Black
1940 26.1 7.7
1950 36.4 13.7
1960 43.2 21.7
1970 54.5 31.4
1980 68.8 51.2
1990 77.9 63.1
2000 83.6 72.3
Farmer John, caught in another lazy lie...
...and your only explanation is...
Whitey is discriminating. LOL!
And WHO is responsible for that terrible outcome?
Not farmer john. Progressive liberals... of course! LOL!
I read the 50% number somewhere. Apparently it was wrong. See the census numbers i now posted.
What I was asking as a cite was your contention that high school graduation rates for blacks actually declined. Which is of course bullshit, as per usual.
Oh, and don't tell me, "i relied on your numbers." Fact-check yourself.
...a lazy lie that came from you. Imagine that! LOL!
I am not sure how that poll is evidence of racism. Again, you are simply assuming it is because of racism, where as the actual reason could be because of numerous things. All you are doing is looking at some results and assuming racism is the cause of those results. That is why this racism is "covert", because you cannot see it, taste it, smell it, hear it, or touch it, but you can assume it based on certain results.
I will break down what it is you are doing.
1. If X (racism) then Y;
2. Y, therefore X (racism)
This, however, is a fallacy called affirming the consequent. Your reasoning only works if it is:
1. If and only if X (racism) then Y;
2. Y, therefore X (racism).
I think it can easily be concluded that racism is not the only cause of Y. It appears that you believe it is, which is why you assume racism is the cause, and considering you lack enough evidence to support the view, you declare it "covert".
I am not sure what else you think can be done. Discrimination is illegal. We have affirmative action and SBA minority loans. Don Imus was fired. What is you really want? Do you want slave reparations? And why don't you say what percentage of white people you think are racist? 80%, 55%, 30%, what is it?
I don't lie, FJ. That might be a big difference between me and you. If I cited the wrong number, it's not out of lying, it was a mistake. I'd rather argue on the real numbers. My goal is to test my beliefs and debate with others, not to "always be right." Distoring numbers to "be right" would be a worthless victory indeed.
Course who ya gonna believe... the census bureau or US News?
My goal is to test my beliefs and debate with others, not to "always be right." Distoring numbers to "be right" would be a worthless victory indeed.
LOL! Your goal is to avoid reasons that explain, and embrace reasons that don't.
Here's a reason why there are so few black lawyers...
"High school drop-outs are far more likely to be unemployed, in prison and living in poverty."
Gee, maybe it isn't IQ. Maybe it's those damn white progressive liberal teachers preventing those black and minority kids from getting diplomas.
Racist B*stards!
Course the amount of education one receives has NOTHING at all to do with their IQ's.... there's no correlation between IQ and years education. Absolutely NONE. Anyone can be a lawyer. In fact, most lawyers are have taken intelligence tests, and have been classified as "morons".
Evidence... dora.
Note: Census Bureau figures for people aged 25 years and older...
How many GED's are cranked into the census bureau numbers?
Your logic is all fine, but I never said that racism was the only cause of black people's situation. you're right in that it must be an IFF relationship to infer that if x->y, then y->x. Duly noted, that was a poor argument.
This is where I see the crux of our disagreement:
We have:
if X (black people and white people are equally interently capable and intelligent and all that) -> Y (there should be comparable standards of living, earnings, logevity, criminality, poverty rates, etc.)
We don't have the Y, clearly, but you and I (not FJ) don't think that X is the only possible reason for the disparity. FJ believes that this is an IFF relationship, we don't. So we are looking to fill in that blank, the other X's that could be the reasons. All the reasons you give (criminality, out of wedlock births, high school graduation rates) you treat as standalone reasons, whereas I see them as intermediary reasons, which have greater, bigger reasons behind them.
It's like suppose there is an apple is on a tree. You start shaking the tree, and the apple falls. I ask, "why did the apple fall?" and you say, "because the stem broke," and i say, "why did that happen?" you say "because the stem is made out of this kind of material, and it breaks" and so on. I feel like that is what you are doing -- you never get back to the original reason(s): that you shook the tree.
...and 50% of minorities are...high school dropouts.
"High school drop-outs are far more likely to be unemployed, in prison and living in poverty."
That sure doesn't sound like discrimination holding anybody back...
In fact, most lawyers are have taken intelligence tests, and have been classified as "morons".
Evidence... dora.
Imputing from one to many? Another logical error.
Your Farmer John strawman is pretty stupid. Even I agree with that.
Too bad my argument, and your Farmer John strawman argument, bear little resemblance.
Strawman arguments... another logical error on your part.
...because I said the ONLY possible reason was...IQ. The Bell Curve controls for NO other factors...
You really are a moron, dora.
...because I said the ONLY possible reason was...IQ. The Bell Curve controls for NO other factors...
You really are a moron, dora.
That's what IFF means == that it's the only possible reason. IFF = if and only if.
Who's the moron now?
Why don't minorities graduate HS at the same rates whites graduate, dora? Racial discrimination?
...and if I were to compare poor whites with similarly poor blacks... how come poor whites STILL graduate at higher rates?
Racial discrimination?
How do you know this dora? How do you know it's racial discrimination and NOT something else?
but I never said it was the ONLY reason, dora. LOL! Of course once I statistically "control" for those factors... you become the idiot.
logical fallacy... removing from context.
but I never said it was the ONLY reason, dora. LOL! Of course once I statistically "control" for those factors... you become the idiot.
FJ, this is what you said on this very thread:
As for mine, Yep. The Bell Curve correlates ALL those social maladies you mention to IQ.... based soley upon a WHITE population, and THEN factors IN the Black population to see the affect "race" has on the numbers... with very little change in the measured statistical correlation factors.
IQ can "explain" them all.
You are depressing in your idiocy. Like a lame adversary, victories against you are more full of pity for you than any pride.
We can always back up the why questions. I am starting with the basic premise that individuals make choices. Some choices are good and some choices are bad. I assume bad choices to be having children outside of wedlock, dropping out of high school, joining gangs, dealing or doing drugs, committing crime, and so on. The reason a large minority of blacks are in trouble are because of these choices. You then want to reduce these personal choices to racism. You say you are not directly saying that blacks commit crime because of racism, but you are apparently getting very close to it. Even if this were the case, then I would ask what made the white people racist? If you want to attribute some outside influence (racism) into the black crime rate, then do so for the reasons white people are discriminating against blacks. What is the "original reason" for it? Not to rag on Thomas Jefferson or anything, but here are some things he said:
Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me,
that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one [black] could
scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.
To our reproach it must be said, that though for a century and a half we have had under our
eyes the races of black and of red men, they have never yet been viewed by us as subjects of
natural history. I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a
distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the
endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species
of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications.
Now was he being racist, or was he just calling things as he saw them? Was his experience the "original cause" of his racist views?
Well now, have we gone full circle back to the age-old, and may I add unsolvable debate, of nature vs. nurture? If you never learned to read, yeah by age 30, it may be very hard to understand Euclid.
And there's the element of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Say, blacks are all criminals, hopeless, less intelligent, horny, lazy criminals. so let's just put them in the projects. then they grow up in the projects to be criminals. Shocking, right? *eye roll*
Declaring a victory doesn't make it so.
There is no hidden or covert reason fogging up IQ explanation. It turns out, there is no evidence of "racism" at all, except that which skews results due to the law itself....reverse racism. The "problem" as to cause has been "solved".
If I look at people with an IQ of 100 the average wage of a typical white worker is $25,546... a black worker is $25,001... and a Latino is $25,159...
Ooops no discrimination. It's miraculously "gone".
And if I look at people with an IQ of 100, the probability of holding a bachelors degree becomes white 50%, Black 68%, latino 49%.
Blacks w/100 IQs go to college at far HIGHER rates. That's evidence REVERSE Discrimination...
Well now, have we gone full circle back to the age-old, and may I add unsolvable debate, of nature vs. nurture? If you never learned to read, yeah by age 30, it may be very hard to understand Euclid.
That is an obvious objection to why blacks did not understand Euclid. They were simply never taught to read, let alone taught about Euclid. Yet again, you can still ask on the nature vs, nurture debate, why was European civilization so much more advanced than African civilization?
And there's the element of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Say, blacks are all criminals, hopeless, less intelligent, horny, lazy criminals. so let's just put them in the projects. then they grow up in the projects to be criminals. Shocking, right? *eye roll*
If you think like a victim, always believing that white people control your life and the powers of racism make it almost impossible for you to be successful in life, then it will also become a self-fulfilling prophecy. How shocking is it that if you believe that you are not in control of your own life that you will not be?
FJ is too chickenshit to own up to getting caught in a blatant contradiction. Shocking.
xkvsxe tries to make an FJ-esque argument about European vs. African civilization, and then tries to explain black people's problems, once again, through their "victim mentality." Have you heard of this concept, "blaming the victim"?
You could reasonbaly make the same argument about Jews, post-Holocaust: Jews have a victim mentality about being discriminated against, this victim mentality irritates people, makes them dislike Jews.
The only racism in America today lies in the racism of progressive liberal policies that award full college scholarships to blacks on the basis of race in the absence of any actual evidence of discrimination. The only racism in America today is what gets written into a corporate EEO Plans that annually promote and increase minority participation and requires that standards get lowered and jobs get dumbed down so that more numbers of minorities are qualified to fill them. They do so on a strictly voluntary basis... so as to be able to advertise that they do NOT discriminate. Socratic irony?
...a blatant contradiction artificially created through decontextualization? Perhaps I should spend a little time decontextualizing some of your statements, inserting them into strawmen, and refuting them.
That seems to be the only way you can ever succeed in an actual refutation. But I refuse to waste my time performing such nonsense.
The only one you seem to be able to convince, is yourself. But hey, whatever gets you through the evenning.
dora thinks her modern progressive "elitism" is somehow less vile than Jim Crow racism ever was. Fighting discrimination through discrimination is a NOBLE progressive cause. Why is it NOBLE? Why, because it's a LIE, of course!
Oh you're right FJ, my whole story has been a lie. I'm actually a morbidly obese woman living int he basement of her parents' house in Helena, MT. My "boyfriend" is the drive-thru clerk at the local jack in the box. I nourish myself with diet rite, i have cystic acne, and i'm allergic to my own tears.
No, the LIE is that discrimination explains ANYTHING regarding black social outcomes. Once you control for IQ... the disparities majically "disappear".... POOF! Gone. People with similar IQ's experience similar "social outcomes". Discrimination? What's that?
The "discrimination" argument represents a political platform that keeps 90% of blacks voting Democratic under the pretense that blacks are being discriminated against. Evidence of discrimination produced by dora... to date... ZERO. Allegations, innumerable, but evidence... ZERO.
xkvsxe tries to make an FJ-esque argument about European vs. African civilization
You are the one that wanted the "original causes". Please explain to me what caused white people to be racist. If the choices black people make are not good enough for you, then neither should the choices white people make. What could possibly be causing white people to discriminate against black people? If I were to answer black people, then I would essentially be saying what you are, trying to blame the criminal actions of blacks on whites.
I am not trying to make a moral evolution between black and white, but I am making a factual one, and that is that European civilization was far more advanced than African civilization. I really do not see how educated people could deny this. Are you denying this?
You could reasonbaly make the same argument about Jews, post-Holocaust: Jews have a victim mentality about being discriminated against, this victim mentality irritates people, makes them dislike Jews.
I sense it is you that is really blaming the victim. Blacks rob, steel, and murder innocent victims, and you blame white people for these actions. The only one to blame are those committing the crime. You cannot blame racism for causing black people to commit crime. I know you believe you are not doing this, but I fail to see how you are not. Why don't we ask what made the Nazi's hate the Jews so much? I mean what the Jews do to the German people?
Evan, awesome again!
Also, Farmer John and xkvsxe, you guys should have blogs, too, but don't leave here, you'd be missed. You guys are good. This me/Dora person seems like a really great debater and you guys squash her every attempt to skew or divert attention from the truth. Yeah!
-Smart Christian man
The check is in the mail - thanks Evan.
Dora's Mom
P.S. The Farmer has a blog - the farmer has a blog - hi-ho-the-derry-oh! The Farmer has a blog!
GOOD! You wore your gasmask, Farmer - Ya-Uthuh-Mutha
oooo-oooooooh, that smell
cantcha smell that smell
oooo-oooooooh, that smell
that used car smell!
I sense it is you that is really blaming the victim. Blacks rob, steel, and murder innocent victims, and you blame white people for these actions. The only one to blame are those committing the crime. You cannot blame racism for causing black people to commit crime. I know you believe you are not doing this, but I fail to see how you are not.
So wiat, you're saying that blaming whitey is blaming the victim?
Why don't we ask what made the Nazi's hate the Jews so much? I mean what the Jews do to the German people?
They took all their money in the inter-war period, they didn't want to assimilate into German culture.
You are the one that wanted the "original causes". Please explain to me what caused white people to be racist.
Well, white people somehow needed to justify taking over other people's countries and making some people slaves, and mistreating other people. If we are all created equal, that doesn't seem to be so just. So, if you just say that we are not all created equal, that some of us are just savages, who don't know better, then suddenly it all becomes okay.
Other people have the same kind of thing going on. Japanese people, for example, are EXTREMELY racist against Koreans and Chinese people, and for pretty much the same reasons. Japan was building an empire not so long ago.
I am not trying to make a moral evolution between black and white, but I am making a factual one, and that is that European civilization was far more advanced than African civilization. I really do not see how educated people could deny this. Are you denying this?
Well, not at all points of time. I'm sure you're talking about subsaharan african civilization, not the north african area, right? By your logic, we need an explanation of why Asian civilizations were not as advanced. It's funny, I think at around 900AD, there were probably a lot of middle-easterns sitting around in Cordova and Baghdad wondering why white Europeans are so stupid and backwards. :)
Well, white people somehow needed to justify taking over other people's countries and making some people slaves, and mistreating other people. If we are all created equal, that doesn't seem to be so just. So, if you just say that we are not all created equal, that some of us are just savages, who don't know better, then suddenly it all becomes okay.
So you now believe that the very "idea" of racism arose out of a need to justify "nature/reality" in opposition to the manmade/artifical "idea" of justice... but did white people conquer black/brown populations BECAUSE they were black/brown, or did they conquer them BECAUSE they "could"?
It was invented to justify what white people wanted to do.
Just like if you were going to beat your wife, the idea that every once a while a woman needs a good beating would be helpful in justifying your actions.
White people also successfully exterminated more than half of the Jewish population -- is any condemnation of that simply going against "nature"? White people did it, they certainly could, does that mean it's okay? Does that mean that Jews are somehow "weak," "inferior," "stupider" and/or "deserved it" in some way?
Oh, what's a matter, FJ? Don't want to take your logic to its logical conclusion and tell me that the holocaust was okay?
Might makes right, right? There is no such thing as war crimes, right?
I'm disappointed in your weak-knees commitment to your own principles.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, "racism" was an idea invented "in the name of justice" to prevent people from "doing what comes naturally"... conquering their neighbors, etc. They do this NOT becuase their neighbors are brown/black. They do so becuase they have "the power" to do so. Correct? It was basically invented to "shame" people into treating their neighbors "justly-fairly". Would that be a "fair" characterization?
btw - You have no idea the extent to which my prinicples do or do not compel me to behave, so please... stop trying to imply that you do. I may occassionally employ polemics, but my position seldom lies at the "pole". Nothing to Excess!
No, racism was invented as the ideological underpinning to facilitate the doing of what "comes naturally," to facilitate treating people unjustly and unfairly.
Racism is exceedinlg easy to cobble together -- most people are inherently against change, against "difference." Just focus on all the differences, and people flock to it.
But come on now, according to you, wars, conquering, enslavement are okay because that's what powerful blod beasts do, that's what comes naturally, right? So, slavery is okay, the holocaust is okay, because there are no such things are war crimes according to you. It is the pure essense of the might makes right "doctrine" -- if I have tbe ability to do it, and the desire to, then it is okay.
Or are you a chicken, not man enough to own up to your own beliefs? C'mon, FJ, no need to be a shy girlie man about it...
btw - You have no idea the extent to which my prinicples do or do not compel me to behave, so please... stop trying to imply that you do. I may occassionally employ polemics, but my position seldom lies at the "pole". Nothing to Excess!
Well, if your positions are to have any coherence, there must be some reason why conquering "the darkies" is okay with you, is a healthy expression of what humans naturally want to do, a will-to-power assertion of blond beast dominance, but the holocuast is not okay, is not any of these things.
Let me check again to make sure I've got this right.
This is how "racism" came about. The blond beasts needed a reason to attack their neighbors. They saw that their neighbors skin was brown. They couldn't simply attack their neighbors for NO reason or because they held some tactical or strategic advantage, but the brown skin... now THERE was a convincing reason to attack and take their stuff. And becuase this argument was so convincing, racism became a world wide problem.
and no the holocaust is NOT okay... and slavery is NOT okay. Sorry to dissappoint.
This is how "racism" came about. The blond beasts needed a reason to attack their neighbors. They saw that their neighbors skin was brown. They couldn't simply attack their neighbors for NO reason or because they held some tactical or strategic advantage, but the brown skin... now THERE was a convincing reason to attack and take their stuff. And becuase this argument was so convincing, racism became a world wide problem.
Well, now you're being overly simplistic. It's not just about attacking, it's about enslaving, it's about taking their land permanently, colonizing their countries, killing their leaders and converting them to christianity. ;) By the 19th century, there were many people about who had these crazy "all men are created equal" ideas, natural rights, self-determination, etc. And those ideas were quite popular with some of the elite -- just look at our founding fathers. So, as a countermeasure, to justify empire-building, continued slavery, and in lieu of slavery, poor treatment, the brand of racism whose modern incarnation you subscribe to was invented.
Alternatively, the efforts made on colonization, the resources initially invested -- how do you get missionaries to go over there? tell the missionaries that there are all these less-intelligent savages that need to be saved. Tell the people that the empire is actually helping these poor shmoes, tell the smhoes that too.
and no the holocaust is NOT okay... and slavery is NOT okay. Sorry to dissappoint.
I don't understand why...
Is it about enslaving or exterminating? Like Hitler. He wanted liebensraum for the Aryan Race. He looked to the East and saw millions of Slavs. The slavs were a slighly different shade of color than the Aryans, and Hitler needed a reason to invade Czechoslovakia and Poland and Russia. That skin color difference made ALL the difference. The Jews in Germany were also slightly darker than the aryans, and didn't have blond hair. So they got targetted for extermination too. Right????
So perhaps there are TWO forms of racism. One seeks to eradicate other races, another seeks to enslave and exploit their labor (colonialism).
Let's follow your lead and look at the colonial variety. In order to convince the 17/18/19th century "enlightened" liberal elites that enslaving Africans was okay, the founding fathers got together and had a discussion. It went something like this.
Hey guys, this continent is too big for us to farm by ourselves. We need some help with the work, but let's not share and profits with anybody. I happen to know that there are a bunch of strong dark-skinned guys in Africa that would make perfect workers for us. Lets go capture a bunch of them and bring them over here as our slaves. If anybody questions us, lets just tell them that dark-skinned people are inferior. Okay?"
And THAT is how our "exploitative" variety of American racism came into being. Right?
I love straw-manning etymologies.
btw - What do you think of the Saudi's funding various madrassas and Islamic "chairs of theology" in universities around the globe. Is this racist?
I always thought it funny that every Greek city state practiced slavery (as did every civilization the world has ever known), but the Greeks used to give the Spartans a hard time, because only the Spartans enslaved "other Greeks". It seems it was always okay to enslave foreign "barbarians", but fellow Greeks.... that was a taboo, like incest. It just "wasn't kosher".
I'm really not sure what your point is in any of your last 3 posts...
Well, white people somehow needed to justify taking over other people's countries and making some people slaves, and mistreating other people.
What caused white people to want to control other peoples land and make them slaves? What gave white people the strength to do such things? Of course the entire idea of "all men are created equal" came out of Europe.
Did you know that Arabs enslaved many more blacks than the Europeans did and that Arabs ran the slave trade long before Europeans reached Africa? Of course Africans had other Africans as slaves as well. They also sold many of these slaves to the Europeans. The word slave comes from the word slav, or a group of white Europeans. This is not to mention that European countries were the first to ban slavery.
So wiat, you're saying that blaming whitey is blaming the victim?
You continue to blame innocent white people for the crimes that blacks commit. White people are not forcing black people to have sex, to drop out of high school, or to join gangs.
I mean how far do want to take this? We can either say that individuals are resonponsible for their own choices and actions, or we can take the never ending road to "orignal causes". Apparently you believe that white people inherently want to take over land and enslave people (as if wars of aggression and slavery were not universal) and thus needed to find "justification" for this, but of course if the same argument is made towards blacks, you would dismiss that as racist. Is like saying black people are inherently more violent and prone to crime, and thus in order to "justify" their criminal actions, they blame white people.
The point? Does racism always pursue the same ends? Or is it a means to an undefined end.
Was Iago a racist?
Shakespeare, "Othello"
IAGO -O, sir, content you; I follow him to serve my turn upon him: We cannot all be masters, nor all masters Cannot be truly follow'd. You shall mark Many a duteous and knee-crooking knave, That, doting on his own obsequious bondage, Wears out his time, much like his master's ass, For nought but provender, and when he's old, cashier'd: Whip me such honest knaves. Others there are Who, trimm'd in forms and visages of duty, Keep yet their hearts attending on themselves, And, throwing but shows of service on their lords, Do well thrive by them and when they have lined their coats Do themselves homage: these fellows have some soul; And such a one do I profess myself. For, sir, It is as sure as you are Roderigo, Were I the Moor, I would not be Iago: In following him, I follow but myself; Heaven is my judge, not I for love and duty, But seeming so, for my peculiar end: For when my outward action doth demonstrate The native act and figure of my heart In compliment extern, 'tis not long after But I will wear my heart upon my sleeve For daws to peck at: I am not what I am.
RODERIGO -What a full fortune does the thicklips owe If he can carry't thus!
IAGO -Call up her father, Rouse him: make after him, poison his delight, Proclaim him in the streets; incense her kinsmen, And, though he in a fertile climate dwell, Plague him with flies: though that his joy be joy, Yet throw such changes of vexation on't, As it may lose some colour.
RODERIGO - Here is her father's house; I'll call aloud.
IAGO -Do, with like timorous accent and dire yell As when, by night and negligence, the fire Is spied in populous cities.
RODERIGO -What, ho, Brabantio! Signior Brabantio, ho!
IAGO -Awake! what, ho, Brabantio! thieves! thieves! thieves! Look to your house, your daughter and your bags! Thieves! thieves!
BRABANTIO appears above, at a window
BRABANTIO -What is the reason of this terrible summons? What is the matter there?
RODERIGO -Signior, is all your family within?
IAGO -Are your doors lock'd?
BRABANTIO -Why, wherefore ask you this?
IAGO -'Zounds, sir, you're robb'd; for shame, put on your gown; Your heart is burst, you have lost half your soul; Even now, now, very now, an old black ram Is topping your white ewe. Arise, arise; Awake the snorting citizens with the bell, Or else the devil will make a grandsire of you: Arise, I say.
BRABANTIO -What, have you lost your wits?
RODERIGO -Most reverend signior, do you know my voice?
BRABANTIO -Not I what are you?
RODERIGO -My name is Roderigo.
BRABANTIO -The worser welcome: I have charged thee not to haunt about my doors: In honest plainness thou hast heard me say My daughter is not for thee; and now, in madness, Being full of supper and distempering draughts, Upon malicious bravery, dost thou come To start my quiet.
RODERIGO -Sir, sir, sir,--
BRABANTIO -But thou must needs be sure My spirit and my place have in them power To make this bitter to thee.
RODERIGO -Patience, good sir.
BRABANTIO -What tell'st thou me of robbing? this is Venice; My house is not a grange.
RODERIGO -Most grave Brabantio, In simple and pure soul I come to you.
IAGO -'Zounds, sir, you are one of those that will not serve God, if the devil bid you. Because we come to do you service and you think we are ruffians, you'll have your daughter covered with a Barbary horse; you'll have your nephews neigh to you; you'll have coursers for cousins and gennets for germans.
BRABANTIO -What profane wretch art thou?
IAGO -I am one, sir, that comes to tell you your daughter and the Moor are now making the beast with two backs.
BRABANTIO -Thou art a villain.
IAGO -You are--a senator.
BRABANTIO -This thou shalt answer; I know thee, Roderigo.
RODERIGO -Sir, I will answer any thing. But, I beseech you, If't be your pleasure and most wise consent, As partly I find it is, that your fair daughter, At this odd-even and dull watch o' the night, Transported, with no worse nor better guard But with a knave of common hire, a gondolier, To the gross clasps of a lascivious Moor-- If this be known to you and your allowance, We then have done you bold and saucy wrongs; But if you know not this, my manners tell me We have your wrong rebuke. Do not believe That, from the sense of all civility, I thus would play and trifle with your reverence: Your daughter, if you have not given her leave, I say again, hath made a gross revolt; Tying her duty, beauty, wit and fortunes In an extravagant and wheeling stranger Of here and every where. Straight satisfy yourself: If she be in her chamber or your house, Let loose on me the justice of the state For thus deluding you.
BRABANTIO - Strike on the tinder, ho! Give me a taper! call up all my people! This accident is not unlike my dream: Belief of it oppresses me already. Light, I say! light!
Exit above
IAGO Farewell; for I must leave you: It seems not meet, nor wholesome to my place, To be produced--as, if I stay, I shall-- Against the Moor: for, I do know, the state, However this may gall him with some cheque, Cannot with safety cast him, for he's embark'd With such loud reason to the Cyprus wars, Which even now stand in act, that, for their souls, Another of his fathom they have none, To lead their business: in which regard, Though I do hate him as I do hell-pains. Yet, for necessity of present life, I must show out a flag and sign of love, Which is indeed but sign. That you shall surely find him, Lead to the Sagittary the raised search; And there will I be with him. So, farewell.
Exit
Apparently you believe that white people inherently want to take over land and enslave people (as if wars of aggression and slavery were not universal) and thus needed to find "justification" for this, but of course if the same argument is made towards blacks, you would dismiss that as racist. Is like saying black people are inherently more violent and prone to crime, and thus in order to "justify" their criminal actions, they blame white people.
Um, did you miss that part I wrote about how all empire-builders are prone to this? Here, i will repost:
"Other people have the same kind of thing going on. Japanese people, for example, are EXTREMELY racist against Koreans and Chinese people, and for pretty much the same reasons. Japan was building an empire not so long ago."
Building empires is a desire that afflicts everyone around the world, not just white people. And so does racism. I never said the contrary.
Was Shakespeare a "racist"? Well, like you said, there are different kinds of racism. As far as I know, Shakespeare didn't get out much, so he got his views and perceptions from his society and his contemporaries. Moors were stereotypically held in that time to be emotional, hot-headed, and horny, inter alia.
xkvsxe, i'm still wondering about the whole "jews brought what happened to them onto themselves" theory you seemed to have proposed...
Building empires is a desire that afflicts everyone around the world, not just white people. And so does racism. I never said the contrary.
If all races have the same inclinations, then I do not see how your reasons for white racism explains all that much.
xkvsxe, i'm still wondering about the whole "jews brought what happened to them onto themselves" theory you seemed to have proposed...
I was being sarcastic. You continue to blame other people for the actions of certain individuals. Instead of saying, "yes, black people choose to do x, y, and z, and thus they need to change their behavior", you say "white people force black people to behave in a such and such manner". I simply asked who made the Nazi's kill Jews.
Building empires is a desire that afflicts everyone around the world, not just white people. And so does racism. I never said the contrary.
If all races have the same inclinations, then I do not see how your reasons for white racism explains all that much.
Why not? We're looking at racism in america at a certain period of time in history. just because the explanation can apply to others does not mean that it's any less valid for the example we are examining.
you say "white people force black people to behave in a such and such manner".
I never said that.
You continue to blame other people for the actions of certain individuals. Instead of saying, "yes, black people choose to do x, y, and z, and thus they need to change their behavior",
I agree. But for you, that's the end of the story. You just say, "you guys need to change your behavior." The end.
I think that's being wilfully blind to the causes, and therefore the solutions, of the situation.
Where you and i differ is that i believe that for black people to have the same average income, teen pregnancy rate, criminal rate, etc., it's not enough to simply say "you guys need to change your behavior," because that ignores the realities that many black people live in. You have to address the underlying conditions that black people face in America today.
This applies to all people who have been discriminated against, still face discrimination and racism, and are generally a poorer minority.
I think you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion as to the nature and origin of "racism". And I believe that in the absence of the conditions under which the term has emerged, the condition also tends to disappear. And in the presence of or aggravation of such conditions, the term re-emerges and gathers significance.
What, in your opinion is the fundemental difference which distinguishes "racism" from "anti-semitism?"
I think it is basically the same feeling, but focused on either the "ideals" held by a "different" other "group" or their "nature". And that this feeling either intensifies or diminishes in proportion to the extent of "difference" individual's perceive between their own group conceptions of "the good" and the outgroup's ideals and differences in nature.
I think your dislike of "conservatives" is very much the same feeling as one an "anti-semite" might have, or a "racist", or a "xenophobe" might have... although I'm not sure if it our "nature", so much as our "ideals" that you dislike.
Well, if we take what you say as true, then that must be the same feeling that takes hold of people who create whole blogs just to denounce people of different religions and beliefs, calling them names, making stereotypical comments about them, generally being hateful and prejudiced. yOu know, those people who have websites that regularly use terms like "libertards" and "muzzies" for muslims.
doras new thesis.
Poverty explains social outcomes.
If African Americans families all belonged in the upper 50th percentile in terms of SES (wealth)... their children would then be successful and without external help remain in the upper 50th percentile of social outcomes in the future.
The Bell Curve has already destroyed this false theory... but please continue to believe it if you must. It (SES) explains less than 10% of "life outcome". It has a very "low" statistical correlation.
We are at war, dora. Do you know what war is?
It's other people trying to kill you because they hate you. It's okay to hate them back.
You know, the bell curve has been critiqued and seriously challenged by various very capable people. but i'm not going to get into that with you.
you're showing your weak resolve by being such a maximalist: ive never said that racism explains all, or that poverty explains all. like i always say, the truth often turns out to be much less exciting and complicated than maximalists would like it to be.
We are at war, dora. Do you know what war is?
It's other people trying to kill you because they hate you. It's okay to hate them back.
Personal responsibility, FJ. Individual choice. Stop blaming other people for your friends' actions. Your friends are responsible for themselves.
...and are you sure your NOT a Christian? You want me to love my enemies?
Nah, you want me to love EVERYBODY, tonight, in bed, of course! Can't we all just get along and have sex??? LOL!
There you go again, propositioning me. Why are you so obsessed with my sex life? Does Mrs. Farmer's vag have that old car smell that you find offputting? Or is it covered in cobwebs?
...It hasn't been challenged by many experts... the professional consensus is pretty much... Yep! H*M got it right!
The critique has come monstly from the SJ Gould's and Jesse Jackson's, talking "out" of their fields.
Hey, at least my car's single owner and paid off. Yours is a "daily rental".
Perhaps you are just misinformed. Here's a good article on the topic:
What Herrnstein and Murray used to measure IQ is actually a measure of education as well as intelligence. All the people tracked in the National Longitudinal Study of Youth took the Armed Forces Qualifying Test, which Herrnstein and Murray treat as a good measure of intelligence. Because the material covered in the test includes subjects like trigonometry, many academic critics of The Bell Curve have objected to its use as a measure only of IQ and not at all of academic achievement. Herrnstein and Murray concede in the footnotes that scores tend to rise with the subjects' education--but they seriously underestimate the magnitude of this rise, as Case Study Three shows. And they resist the obvious inference that the test scores are measuring something other than intelligence.
Most of The Bell Curve's analysis is devoted to proving that IQ has more predictive power than parental "socio-economic status." But Herrnstein and Murray's method of figuring socioeconomic status seems designed to low-ball its influence, as Case Study Four explains.
Herrnstein and Murray begin their discussion of the National Longitudinal Study of Youth data by announcing that they aren't going to analyze the effect of education, because education is too much a result of IQ. It's not an independent variable. (Of course, according to their theory, socioeconomic status is also a result of IQ, but somehow, that doesn't stop them.) Therefore, what you'd most want to know from a policy standpoint--how much education can increase opportunity--isn't dealt with in the book, except in two obscure footnotes. Both would seem to support the liberal, pro-education position that Herrnstein and Murray say is futile. One footnote shows education increasing IQ year by year. The other shows a higher correlation between college degree and family income than between IQ and family income.
One of The Bell Curve's theoretical linchpins is the high heritability of IQ. Herrnstein and Murray, sounding like the souls of caution, write that "half a century of work, now amounting to hundreds of empirical and theoretical studies, permits a broad conclusion that the genetic component of IQ is unlikely to be smaller than 40 per cent or higher than 80 per cent. ... For purposes of this discussion, we will adopt a middling estimate of 60 per cent heritability." This now looks seriously overstated. Michael Daniels, Bernie Devlin, and Kathryn Roeder of Carnegie Mellon University took the same studies on which Herrnstein and Murray based their estimate, and subjected them to a computer meta-analysis ("a powerful method of statistical analysis"--The Bell Curve). Their paper, which has not yet been published, says: "In brief, studies of IQ, and our reanalyses of them, suggest a narrow-sense heritability of 34 per cent and a broad-sense heritability of 46 per cent. [The difference between broad and narrow is too technical to explain in this limited space.] This is a far cry from Herrnstein and Murray's maximum value of 80 per cent or their middling value of 60 per cent. Consequently, Herrnstein and Murray give the impression that IQ is highly 'heritable,' but it is not."
Hey, at least my car's single owner and paid off. Yours is a "daily rental".
Paid off? You paid your wife to marry you and/or have sex with you? Are you sure she's not a prostitute? Ew. *shudder*
And your wife was a virgin when you got married? (1) are you sure? (2) were you?
Case study three
Herrnstein and Murray say (in an appendix, not the main text) that on the Armed Forces Qualifying Test, their basic measure of IQ, every year of education adds about one point to the IQ score. Christopher Winship of Harvard University and Sanders Korenman of Baruch College reran the same data, and--as they note dryly in their paper on the subject--"We found it quite difficult to replicate Herrnstein and Murray's results."
Winship and Korenman found, first, that Herrnstein and Murray had incorrectly described the way in which they had handled the data, and second, that they had severely miscoded the educational levels of seven people in the sample in a way that led the overall effect of education on IQ to be understated. If Herrnstein and Murray had run the numbers accurately and in accordance with their own description, their result would have been that each year of education increased IQ by 2.5 points, more than double the figure they gave in The Bell Curve.
Winship and Korenman further note, "It seems peculiar that Herrnstein and Murray did not think they should control for family background in estimating the effects of education on AFQT." By adding Herrnstein and Murray's own measure of socioeconomic status to the model, the effect of education on IQ rises again.
In the paperback edition of The Bell Curve, Murray has raised his estimate of how much each year of education increases IQ--without comment, and without facing the obvious implication for his central thesis.
You seem to think that under NO circumstances can racism ever be justified. I'm saying that racism is no different from any other kind of -ism, and depending upon circumstances can always be justified (correlation factors from 0.01 to 0.99). And that the justification correlates inversly with degree of perceived difference and/or threat.
Could you provide some examples of situations in which racism is justified?
I have the "corrected" paperback version. IQ is slightly "malleable". But to correct for IQ differences African Americans would still require 7-8 years of post-graduate education merely to catch up with the typical white college graduate.
I never said that.
You do not say it directly, but you certainly imply it. You feel that white people are creating the conditions that cause black people to make irresponsible choices. I have conceded the past discrimination has an effect on this, but I do not think you have provided enough evidence of racism today to prove your point; certainly not enough to say that racism is "rampant". Not only do I think you have supported that position, but I think there is too much counter evidence.
...because that ignores the realities that many black people live in. You have to address the underlying conditions that black people face in America today.
The underlying conditions that black people face are that they are a protected minority group. Our government has affirmitive action, minority business loans, and discrimination laws. Minority scholar ships are high in number. We live in a culture with BET and the Black Business Journal Magazine. Racism is extremely taboo in the culture, up to the point where Don Imus can get fired for telling a bad joke.
For example, the public policy goals for an SBA loan are:
Business district revitalization.
Expansion of exports.
Expansion of minority business development.
...
...
http://www.sba.gov/services/financialassistance/sbaloantopics/cdc504/index.html
What else do want done? The conditions are fine. Now it is to black people to change their own lives.
It's 1870. Civil War has just ended, and the Federal troops have just departed home. Six million poor, starving slaves have just been freed.... and you live on a forty acre plot of land that was once the largest plantation in Georgia.
It's December 8th, 1941. Japan has just attacked the USA at Pearl, and has it's eyes on the Aleutians, Phillipines, and West Coast of the USA
It's September 12th, 2001. You've booked a flight from SF to New York...
It's December 8th, 1941. Japan has just attacked the USA at Pearl, and has it's eyes on the Aleutians, Phillipines, and West Coast of the USA
It's September 12th, 2001. You've booked a flight from SF to New York...
Ah, so you are one of those who supports the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. I know a guy like you, a few of them.
It's really stupid, you know. Not very effective. Profiling and all that.
xkvsxe, what's your opinion on this?
xkvsxe, so your whole point is that blacks have all the right conditions, and they're not taking this opportunity because they're all held collectively by the "victicrat mentality." And I ask you again, why do you have such a low opinion of black people as a whole (remember, you want to consider individual choices, right?) that you think that they are all just so gullible and/or stupid to fall for this obvious ruse? Why do you think they are so dumb?
Oh, so we're back to the battle of the sources. Slate magazine and journalist researchers vs Wikipedia and the APA Report.
Back to "study shopping", eh dora? How "scientific" of you.
xkvsxe, what's your opinion on this?
On racial profiling in general? I think it can be used as one factor out of many, but to use as the only variable is bad policy. The police use such profiling often. For example, 93% of serial killers are white men. It would therefore not be that unreasonable to start the search with white men, unless there is substancial reason to believe that in this case it is not a white male.
Using such profiling, however, does not warrant guilt. It is a tiny piece of a very large puzzle. I mean if we really wanted to stop violent crime, we could just lock up all men.
I think the critique in Slate is quite substantive, with capable professional statisticians being cited. If you'd read the article, i'm sure you would appreciate the last paragraph. It's right your alley:
In the most famous passage in The Republic, Plato describes an underground cave where people are held prisoner in chains, unable to see anything but the shadows cast by figures passing outside; they mistake the shadows for reality. The Republic is probably the first place in history where an idea like that of Murray and Herrnstein's cognitive elite appears. Plato believed that through education, people could leave the cave and be able to see the truth instead of the shadows, thus fitting themselves to become the wise rulers of society. But he was quick to insert a cautionary note: Those who have left the cave might be tempted to think they can see perfectly clearly, while actually they would be "dazzled by excess of light." The image applies to The Bell Curve: Presented as an exact representation of reality, in opposition to the shadows of political correctness, it actually reflects the blinkered vision of one part of the American elite. It constantly tells these people that they are naturally superior, and offers lurid descriptions of aspects of national life that they know about only by rumor. Readers who accept The Bell Curve as tough-minded and realistic, and who assume that all criticism of it is ignorant and ideologically motivated, are not as far removed from Plato's cave as they might think.
...Hey, we paid the 1941 Japanese "reparations". It was cheap at twice the price. My first boss spent time as a kid in an internment camp. He didn't see his own father for three years, didn't even know where he was. His whole family had to essentially "start over" post-war. They have been extremely successful. Nope, no "lasting effects of discrimination". They went from zero to sixty within a single generation.
Back to "study shopping", eh dora? How "scientific" of you.
What you call study shopping, others call "different opinions of equal merit and validity that should be considered if one is to have a well-informed opinion."
LOL FJ, really, you outdo yourself at every turn. So then it was okay to intern the people, right? Cuz they're all just more than willing oblige, and of course, FJ, if they felt it was unjust or felt bitter about it, they would tell you, right? They would have no incentive to try to move on so as not to aggravate others and be "offputting"?
Hey, you didn't answer, did you marry a prostitute or what? or was she damaged goods? I love how you somehow think you "own" your wife's vagina and that you paid for it. Those 4 shot lines spoke volumes about you, i fear.
LOL! I'd love to discuss Plato with your Slate "expert". One is initially "dazzled"... but after a while...
And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he is forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.
Not all in a moment, he said.
He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?
Certainly.
Last of all he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.
Certainly.
He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?
Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.
And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?
Certainly, he would.
...and I do pity you, dora. That's why I'm here.
xkvsxe, you never addressed those allegations of intelligence distortion by col. wilkerson. oh well.
fj, look, this is right up your alley.
ugh... you're such a dirty old man...ew.
xkvsxe, so your whole point is that blacks have all the right conditions, and they're not taking this opportunity because they're all held collectively by the "victicrat mentality.
I listed the condtions for you. How can say that the conditions are stacked against blacks in light of all the things I just presented? I do not see how it can be done.
I do not think it was to with how dumb they are. It has more to do with culture. When speaking proper English is considered "acting white", there is a problem. When you have a group of people telling blacks that everyone is out to get them, you have a problem. I also agree with you that past discrimination is responsible for creating these conditions. I simply do not see how current discrimination is a problem.
What more do you think can be done? More affirmitive action? More minority scholarships? More minority loans? More discrimination laws? More welfare? More government housing? More food stamps? You have presented what you believe is a problem, yet you have not offered any solutions to this problem.
Wisdom vs justice, dora dear. You can't always have both. The tragic nature of "choice". Like "abortion." Right?
And why are you so interested in Mrs. Farmers vag? I already told you... "I'm the king lesbian!"
Nice link. No wonder blacks aren't graduating from HS. The teachers are showing Brokeback Mountain to 12 year olds instead of teaching Euclid. It kinda sounds like...
Plato, "Republic"
And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened:--Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.
I see.
And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.
You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.
Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?
True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?
And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?
Yes, he said.
And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?
Very true.
And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?
No question, he replied.
To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.
That is certain.
Wisdom vs justice,
I love how you've completely convinced yourself that you know anything about either.
And why are you so interested in Mrs. Farmers vag? I already told you... "I'm the king lesbian!"
You must think you're so funny...it's kind of sad.
xkvsxe, my answer: education. it's the key to everything. it's the key to reducing racism in everyone. it's the key to getting ahead. exposure to variety of people. look at FJ here, he's the most exposed out of all his friends, and look at his opinions. If we made study abroad mandatory in high school, for example, that would helps leaps and bounds, imho. it would not only help with americans being worldly, but with dealing with diversity at home as well.
Your culture argument -- it sounds to me like just a new form of racism, because this "blck culture" we're blaming everything on, it is viewed to be just as intrinsic and indelible to individual black people as "genetic inferiority" used to be. It's a step in the right direction, it's an improvement, but it's quite similar.
And since I obviously know very little about either, if you knew anything of wisdom or justice, you'd feel compelled to tell me, right? You could start by describing to me their nature...
Frankly, it's a subject I just can't get enough of!
...or are you going to simply "bask in the sun" all day getting a tan, and NOT return to the cave to rescue us poor enslaved misguided prisoners....
xkvsxe, my answer: education. it's the key to everything.
And how are blacks being denied access to education? Affirmitive action and minority scholarships favor blacks. We are spending a record amount on education.
Your culture argument -- it sounds to me like just a new form of racism, because this "blck culture" we're blaming everything on
Culture is very different than race. Culture can be changed; it is not inherent to blacks. It is environmental, not genetic. I tend to place the blame on the actor. If someone chooses to drop out of high school, then I do not blame white people, I blame the person that made the choice.
I've tried to tell you, for waht must be multiple weeks now, but you're not really amenable to it for some reason... i think now that i'm done with finals, i'm going to go do other stuff more often...
Nice new thesis, btw, dora.
It's neither nature (my argument) OR nurture (your argument) which explains poor social outcomes.
And since it's neither, I give up. The problem HAS to be unsolvable! So why bother.
You can't legislate against it... cause THAT is a futile attempt at changing "nurture". You can't breed it out, cause THAT is a futile attempt to change nature.
We're just simply STUCK with it!
I've tried to tell you, for waht must be multiple weeks now, but you're not really amenable to it for some reason... i think now that i'm done with finals, i'm going to go do other stuff more often...
Good. You can go study how actual race relations are in America. You can look up how our government bends over backwards to help blacks. I mean, you can actually join the real world! Good luck.
xkvsxe, my answer: education. it's the key to everything.
And how are blacks being denied access to education? Affirmitive action and minority scholarships favor blacks. We are spending a record amount on education.
Well now, buddy, it's all connected, since the quality of your school depends on where you live, therefore poor people get worse education -- it's kind of a cycle like that. There is not nearly enough money being spent on attracting qualified teachers. How are you going to get anyone except the most selfless folk to be high school teachers if they are paid squat?
Your culture argument -- it sounds to me like just a new form of racism, because this "blck culture" we're blaming everything on
Culture is very different than race. Culture can be changed; it is not inherent to blacks. It is environmental, not genetic. I tend to place the blame on the actor. If someone chooses to drop out of high school, then I do not blame white people, I blame the person that made the choice.
Like I said, it's a step in the right direction.
Your little personal responsibility tack is getting old, and it sounds to me like the all-purpose fallback to avoid responsibility for your fellow man, actually. It's like when the US or France or some other big country criticizes other countries for not having good democracies or something. Like, hey, Congo, why can't you get your shit together? Right? Except everyoen fails to mention that Congo's past is riddled with fascinating events like that one war that was started by... Elf, the french state-owned oil company at the time.
You can't keep saying personal responsibility with one hydra-head and then perpetuating the conditions that cause the problems with the other hydra head.
erratum - not "your" but "xkvsxe's" argument
xkvsxe, can I ask you, where do you live? in a diverse place? you ever travel? do you have any black friends? don't lie. I only have 3, and only 1 hispanic friend, and at the moment, i don't have any close asian friends. but that's the truth.
I mean, i mostly grew up in lily-white suburbs. i now live in NYC. I see race relations, i see who is golfing at country clubs and who works at them.
do you?
dora's solution.... More taxpayer money providing jobs for liberals!
Now why didn't I think of that? LOL!
Yeah, FJ, less stupid wars in Iraq, less tax breaks, more spending on education.
You know those tax breaks? I think it's hilarious. Most Americans will get, what, $200 out of them? maybe $600? Americans are so CHEAP! Because their support for some tax cuts is bought so easily, with so little money, whereas the real beneficiaries of those tax breaks are people and entities who stand to gain 6 and 7 and 8 figures. What a ripoff for regular joe shmoe.
Well now, buddy, it's all connected, since the quality of your school depends on where you live, therefore poor people get worse education -- it's kind of a cycle like that. There is not nearly enough money being spent on attracting qualified teachers. How are you going to get anyone except the most selfless folk to be high school teachers if they are paid squat?
I guess dora never heard of the Kansas City Court Ordered School Experiment... billions spent on inner city schools. Result - no change.
xkvsxe, here's another thought. If you're so mr. personal responsibility, how about all them darkies killing each other in IRaq? We didn't make them do it. We should just leave, and tell them, here's a copy of the federalist papers, sort your own shit out.
Why not?
Post a Comment