RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (9) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: A Modest Proposal< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2005,11:56   

This topic came up during the LUCA thread, and I thought it deserved its own space.

  Western Civilisation is in deep trouble. In addition to an aging population, we are experiencing historically low reproduction rates - below replacement level, in fact. What to do? Most governments turn to immigration for an answer. The immigrants, they reason, provide the cheap labor that allows for economic expansion, while their consumption fuels the growth of service-sector industries. The enriched tax base allows us to maintain the social services and trust funds that cushion retirement accounts. And this does not even account for the cultural enrichment the newcomers also provide.
  There's only problem - the economy doesn't exist in a vacuum. Whatever affects the economy affects the wider society, especially when the agents of change add their own culture to the mix. Now, if that culture is sound and flexible, no real damage is done. But if they bring a diseased culture along with their possessions, everyone suffers. The immigrants don't assimilate, enrich, or even work - and thus new problems join the old. Politicians scramble for a solution. Perhaps Western society itself must change? Crime rises, liberties wither, and resentments build. This, of course, leads to yet more crime and even more Draconian laws to fix the rising tide of chaos. Civilisation ultimately collapses. Is there a way out of this mess? Yes - but I'll give my solution later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2005,12:16   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 13 2005,17:56)
Is there a way out of this mess? Yes - but I'll give my solution later.

Why do I suspect that the answer will involve establishing a fundamentalist Christian theocracy in some shape or form?  ???

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
Swoosh



Posts: 42
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2005,14:25   

I don't see the problem as a clash of cultures or ideology or ethical relativism or anything of the sort.  Its a simple biological problem rooted in ordinary physics.

There are too many people.  We're approaching the point of no return wrt the globes carrying capacity.  Human effort is both reorganizing and releasing more energy into the system than the system can process.  Technology is a double blade here.  One the one hand, its brought us this far.  On the other, we've overextended ourselves through careless application.  There is coming a point when our technological scaffolding will no longer support the vast and ill-constrained platforms upon which industrial civilization  operates.  A population crash is in the works, and there is  nothing we want to do about it.  Or maybe, there is nothing we can do.  Its just plain physics.

With small groups of people, it doesn't matter how differently the worldviews or approaches to life manifest themselves.  The world is a big place and if nothing else we can just ignore the people over there and get on with our own lives.  But communities are no longer explicable that way, and respectful avoidance isn't an option.  The village no longer exists.  They've all consolidated into gigantic nations.  Everybody rubs elbows with everyone else, and friction ensues.  Its a global mosh pit out there.

Ultimately, the differences between cultures isn't what will take us down.  Our downfall will be the result of failing to address the physical impossibility of infinite growth.  The answer is simple.  Either we take intentional, predictable steps to reverse our growth in the world, or the world will do it for us.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2005,21:20   

Mr Ghost of Paley. I felt a few minor corrections were needed in your oped
Quote
There's only problem - the economy doesn't exist in a vacuum. Whatever affects the economy affects the wider society, especially when the agents of change add their own culture to the mix. Now, if that culture is sound and flexible, no real damage is done. But if they bring a diseased different culture along with their possessions, everyone suffers. The immigrants don't aren't permitted to assimilate, enrich, or even work - and thus new problems join the old. Politicians scramble for a solution. Perhaps Western society itself must change? Crime rises, liberties wither, and resentments build. This, of course, leads to yet more crime and even more Draconian laws to fix the rising tide of chaos. Civilisation ultimately collapses may degenerate. Is there a way out of this mess? Yes - but I'll give my solution opinion later.


Are you sure you'll have time to work on your solutionopinion piece whilst preparing your paper and working on your theory of geocentrism.

Come on, admit it. You are parodying. No-one can be (apparently) this lucid and yet so completely irrational.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2005,04:07   

Quote
Are you sure you'll have time to work on your solutionopinion piece whilst preparing your paper and working on your theory of geocentrism.

 Your concern is touching..... but relax, Foxy. I may not be good at much, but I can multitask like crazy.

Quote
Come on, admit it. You are parodying. No-one can be (apparently) this lucid and yet so completely irrational.

 Oh, how the imams must be laughing at your clueless ass. How are my opinions irrational? Remember, this is an American board, so you can't get Big Bro to shut me up - you'll have to support your diatribes with logic n' evidence. Good luck, Monsieur - it's all you can rely on, apparently.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2005,06:11   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 13 2005,17:56)
This topic came up during the LUCA thread, and I thought it deserved its own space.

Wow…I hope I'm not getting blamed for the decline and fall of Western civilization merely because I'm not having children. :-)

Anyway, a couple of observations:

Quote
The immigrants don't assimilate, enrich, or even work…


Well, not exactly. As a resident of California, I'm well aware of the fact that if it were not for illegal immigrants, the state economy would collapse. Agriculture is utterly dependent on immigration, for one thing. And the hospitality industry would be in trouble without it, too.

Quote
Western Civilisation is in deep trouble.


Well, maybe (although so far I don't see any obvious signs of its demise). But the health of the planet is definitely in deep trouble, and in some ways Western civilization is the cause of the trouble.

The United States comprises ~5% of the world population, but uses ~25% of the world's resources. The problem is, if we want the rest of the world to enjoy our standard of living (and I'm assuming, Bill, that in some ways that's your goal, provided it goes along with Western civilization's values), we're going to need quite a few more earths to do it. Let's be ridiculous and assume China can assume First-World standards of living in the next 50 years. Well, China's got four times the population of the United States, which means all by itself China would use 100% of the world's resources to attain the same standard of living.

Obviously, something's got to give somewhere. Our benighted vice-president's opinions aside, conservation is going to be a matter of survival. But with America's profligate consumption of natural resources, and evident disregard for the state of the environment, it's going to be hard to take the moral high road on this issue.

Is it beginning to become a little more clear why I don't necessarily agree that a high birth rate in the developed world is a solution to any problem?

Evolve, or die. Those seem to be our choices as a civilization.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2005,07:44   

Two major logical fallacies from the Ghost:

1.  He implies that the economy is a zero sum game.  It is most certainly not, as any competent economist will tell you.  What I mean by this, for those not familiar with game theory, is that in economics, you do not necessarily have to rob from Peter to give to Paul.  It is in fact possible for everyone to gain.

Here's an example, with regards to immigration.  The economy in one country has collapsed, and unemployment is high.  In the country next door, however, the economy is booming and the only concern is inflation and lack of labor.  So people migrate from country A, which now has less unemployment to deal with, to country B, which now has a larger pool of workers who are willing to perform manual labor at low cost.  Thus, the problems in both countries are now solved, and most people are happy.

2.  The Ghost appears to believe that immigration, and possible globalization as well, are new phenomena.  This is patently false.  There have been many waves of immigration and globalization before.  The most recent major wave was from ~1875-1914.  I don't believe that I need to mention the significance of the end date on that one.

It was during that period that the US received a huge population boost.  Many of my ancestors came to the US during that time, for instance.  In fact, presuming that most of you are not Iroquois or Cherokee or some such, most of your ancestors probably came to this country at that time.  There was also a previous immigration wave during the 1840's from Ireland during their potato famine, which was when many of the Irish immigrants came to America.

Funny how none of the other immigration waves caused a "collapse of civilization."

Besides,you know what Gandhi said about Western civilization.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2005,08:28   

I was thinking along the same lines as your point 2.  The UK, for instance, has been suffering waves of immigration for about 2,000 years, and the US for about 300.

One wonders if GoP's (how like the GOP  :D) thoughts are that immigration of non-European types is somehow different to immigration of European types.  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2005,08:51   

Wow, you guys are sumpin'. When I make a complete argument, I get....

<chirpchirpchirpchirp>

 ......but let me make an abbreviated one, and the bloodhounds come a' bayin'. Note to self: Suspense + Politically Incorrect Thinking = Deluge (in relative terms at least).  :D

Quote
Two major logical fallacies from the Ghost:

 Shazam! An actual argument!
Quote
1.  He implies that the economy is a zero sum game.

Really? I thought that phrases like this:
Quote
There's only problem - the economy doesn't exist in a vacuum. Whatever affects the economy affects the wider society, especially when the agents of change add their own culture to the mix. Now, if that culture is sound and flexible, no real damage is done.

imply otherwise, especially since I made no attempt to address the economic argument. I'm fully aware that free trade can produce benefits for both partners, even if one nation is more efficient in producing and distributing goods. The culture can still suffer, however, regardless of the economic gain.
Quote
2.  The Ghost appears to believe that immigration, and possible globalization as well, are new phenomena.  This is patently false.  There have been many waves of immigration and globalization before.  The most recent major wave was from ~1875-1914.  I don't believe that I need to mention the significance of the end date on that one.

 Uhhhhh....no. Since the vast majority of these newcomers came from Europe, the cultural differences, although substantial, were manageable. Unless Ireland and Lithuania were Muslim countries at the time, which is doubtful (if currently taught, no doubt).
Quote
One wonders if GoP's (how like the GOP  ) thoughts are that immigration of non-European types is somehow different to immigration of European types.  

 <Beeep-Beeeep-Beeeeep-Beeeep>
 Possible thoughtcrime in progress! All guards to Sector B! This is not a drill! Repeat: All guards to sector B!
Chill, M.V., it will all be explained.......later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2005,10:41   

Mr The Ghost of Paley inquires
Quote
How are my opinions irrational?


Geocentism is not rational, gene transfer by ingestion in multicellular animals is not rational. But your analysis of problems that can arise from rapid immigration of culturally different groups seemed quite lucid. I am curious as to your solution and why you think we in the poster's graveyard need to know this. Jacques Chirac, Ariel Sharon, and other national leaders would surely benefit more from your opinions and be able to put them into practice.

Mr The Ghost of Paley adds
Quote
Remember, this is an American board, so you can't get Big Bro to shut me up - you'll have to support your diatribes with logic n' evidence.


American... Eh alors?

You have this board confused with Dr Dembski's blogsite, perhaps. No arbitrary censorship here. Not even for being boring.

Diatribes, moi? I'm not the one espousing crazy ideas in a parody of a crank pseudo-scientist.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2005,12:02   

Quote
Geocentism is not rational, gene transfer by ingestion in multicellular animals is not rational. But your analysis of problems that can arise from rapid immigration of culturally different groups seemed quite lucid.

 My mistake. I thought you were saying that my stance on immigration was irrational. But if you find it wrong-headed, I would certainly love to hear your reasons why. Or you can wait for the full post.
Quote
American... Eh alors?

You have this board confused with Dr Dembski's blogsite, perhaps. No arbitrary censorship here. Not even for being boring.

 Ummm....Mr. Fox, you do realise I was praising this board for allowing free speech, n'est-ce pas? The slam was directed at France's speech codes. Remember the Bardot affair? Or is your media even more controlled than I feared?
Quote
Diatribes, moi? I'm not the one espousing crazy ideas in a parody of a crank pseudo-scientist.

 Why is everyone so obsessed with my motivations? I mean, I know I can get ornery at times, but at least I attempt to address other people's arguments. Even if they're French. :D

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2005,15:48   

Quote
I am curious as to your solution and why you think we in the poster's graveyard need to know this. Jacques Chirac, Ariel Sharon, and other national leaders would surely benefit more from your opinions and be able to put them into practice.

 Yes. The solution. Where was I? Oh yes.
   Now, as several posters have asserted, immigration can certainly benefit society. The question becomes: How can we maximize these gains while reducing cultural friction? The answer, of course, has been staring us in the face all along: by using the scientific method.
   Society's elites assume that all immigrants are interchangable, and minus prejudice from the blue-eyed devil (from now on, BED), should assimilate fairly uniformly throughout the workforce and produce roughly equal outcomes. In fact, this assumption underwrites the laws mandating affirmative action, at least in the U.S. But is this reasonable?
   On the face of it, this truism is highly questionable. First, cultural values differ. Some prize individuality, others emphasize group harmony. Some are intellectually inclined, others are more spiritual. Of course, these values exist on a continuum - all societies embrace the core human values to some extent - but small differences become huge when the groups are forced to compete.
   And that's where statistics come in. Unless competing groups are precisely equal, their achievement will produce different averages and variances. Is this a problem? After all, aren't we judged as individuals? Yes, but the individuals given most weight are the famous ones, the "movers and shakers". Those are the individuals that define a group. Einstein. Newton. Shakespeare. Ramanujan. Lady Murasaki. And so on.
   What does this mean? First, these individuals have one thing in common: their abilities lie on the extreme right tail of the talent curve. In addition, they existed in cultures that nurtured their particular talents. Shakespeare's reputation as a giant rests partly on the historical circumstances of his time; an era when the English language was just being standardized, when the ability to compose verse was highly prized, and a developing middle class that could provide an education and supplement an artist's income. He certainly deserves his lofty reputation, but at the time he was merely the brightest star in an already crowded firmament.
   Perhaps the assumption of group equality can be salvaged by the evidence? A counterintuitive hypothesis need not be wrong; common sense is often a poor guide. Here is where we turn to history. And history delivers a cold verdict indeed: small group differences do not disappear when societies collide - they magnify. So much, in fact, that many are forced to avert their eyes from the glare.
   In fact, a cursory inspection of modern immigration history quickly identifies the groups that blend most seamlessly into the Western fabric: Europeans, Northeast Asians, and Jews (No surprise, since these groups helped create the Western identity in the first place). Now, a lot of ink has been spilled trying to identify the precise cause of this; but for our purpose the reason is immaterial. I don't care why these groups are so beneficial to Western societies, I just know that they are, and as a pragmatist, I would like to use that fact.
   Better yet, the record is clear on who to avoid, and the results dovetail nicely with common sense: those people who hate our guts, and want to destroy the culture we have so painstakingly crafted. And why not? Our culture is not theirs:

James Baldwin:
Quote
"The most illiterate among [the Swiss villagers] is related, in a way that I am not, to Dante, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Aeschylus, da Vinci, Rembrandt and Racine; the cathedral at Chartres says something to them which it cannot say to me, as indeed would New York's Empire State Building, should anyone here ever see it. Out of their hymns and dances come Beethoven and Bach. Go back a few centuries and they are in their full glory -- but I am in Africa, watching the conquerors arrive."

   There is much truth to this. If I shared his history, I too would see a conqueror's energy in a bust, a hiss of menace in a sonnet. Certainly I can empathise with such sentiments, but this provides little comfort as I watch Paris burn.
 And Paris need not burn. Yes, Westerners have caused much evil and suffering. Perhaps we have so damaged the environment that it cannot be fixed. Perhaps severe adjustments must be made. But why should we stand by listlessly while people who consider us infidels, BEDs, and colonialists wreck the beauty that we have created? How does this solve anything? Wouldn't it be better to consolidate, rather than dissipate, our energy?
   So here's the solution:
 1) Restrict immigration to those nations who respect our culture.
 2) Buy out those immigrants who don't, and send them back to their countries of origin (where they won't be held back by the BEDs who torment them so). Perhaps an average bribe of $5000/yr for every year spent in the host country (up to 10 years), plus all their liquified assets of course
 3) Let freedom of commerce and association ring through the land. Abolish minimum wage, race laws, and any other useless, government-bloating, liberty-crushing machinations on the citizen. Let people pay what they want, live with whom they want, and say what they want.
 What are the advantages of this model? I'll fill in the details later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2005,17:02   

Your posts are well written, but your logic is so fallacious that I don't even know where to begin.

Europeans are all of the same culture?  So I suppose you'd like to go to downtown Derry and wave the Union Jack.  Go ahead, see how long you survive.

Similarly, I seem to remember two World Wars, plus countless skirmishes in places like Alsace-Lorraine where two countries interact.  ####, do you know how many languages they speak in Europe?  Yes, right now Europe is fairly unified, but it was not always so, even a generation ago.

Your second fallacy is this line:

Quote
In fact, a cursory inspection of modern immigration history quickly identifies the groups that blend most seamlessly into the Western fabric: Europeans, Northeast Asians, and Jews


Again, at this moment in history, these groups appear well assimilated in Western culture.  But please, read up about Berlin in 1939 and tell me that us Jews were blended seamlessly into the Western fabric.  Sheesh.  Now you might respond with "but that's not America."  Ok, go read some of Henry Ford's writings.  See how well he thought that Jews had assimilated.  As for Northeast Asians, clearly you are not from the West Coast, else you would have read some of the history of how Chinese and Japanese immigrants were treated there.

Now to your points:

Quote
1) Restrict immigration to those nations who respect our culture.


Nations don't respect anything, they don't have emotions, people do.  Clearly the people trying to come to our shores respect our culture, otherwise they would go somewhere else.  How many immigrants do you actually know?

Quote
 2) Buy out those immigrants who don't, and send them back to their countries of origin (where they won't be held back by the BEDs who torment them so). Perhaps an average bribe of $5000/yr for every year spent in the host country (up to 10 years), plus all their liquified assets of course


How the #### would you do this without resorting to Gestapo tactics?  What do you do if the host country won't take them back?  What if the host country will imprison, torture, or kill them?  What if they refuse to go?  What if they have families here, and their children don't even speak the language of the old country?

Quote
3) Let freedom of commerce and association ring through the land. Abolish minimum wage, race laws, and any other useless, government-bloating, liberty-crushing machinations on the citizen. Let people pay what they want, live with whom they want, and say what they want.


Pointless mental masturbation.  Go take a poli sci class or two...even better, you could go get a degree in that subject, like I did.  But you know what, if you want to abolish these laws, go right ahead and write to your congressman, it's your right.  I wouldn't hold my breath.  Since neither congress nor the President would do that, how would you accomplish it?  

And right now you are completely free to say whatever you want, as you're doing right now.  And I have the right to inform you that if you don't want to be treated like a racist, you might want to write something that less resembles Mein Kampf.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2005,21:07   

Quote
you might want to write something that less resembles Mein Kampf.


Seconded.

Mr Ghost of Paley, you cannot be serious.

BTW French TV can be rather deferential to government, which is why I have satellite for BBC UK.

There's nothing wrong intrinsically in offering assistance to immigrants who wish to return to their home country; this has been done in the UK with refugees from the Bosnian conflict, for example. Resources are finite and limiting immigration to a level that matches those resources seems perfectly reasonable. Pulling the rug out from under immigrants who have been allowed to settle, by the use of compulsion or economic pressure does hint at a "final solution".

Where I fundamentally disagree with you is
Quote
3) Let freedom of commerce and association ring through the land. Abolish minimum wage, race laws, and any other useless, government-bloating, liberty-crushing machinations on the citizen. Let people pay what they want, live with whom they want, and say what they want.


One man's freedom is another's oppression. One rôle of government is to ensure there are checks and balances so that there is an equal amount of freedom for all its citizens. The unbridled free market is a carte blanche for exploitation and corruption.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2005,04:14   

Actually, GOP has a good point here.  We should send all immigrants home who don't have respect and sympathy with the Native American Culture, and don't agree to abide by its basic tenets.  That could be very interesting.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2005,05:53   

Quote
Your posts are well written, but your logic is so fallacious that I don't even know where to begin.

 Uhhhh..... thanks, I guess.
Quote
Europeans are all of the same culture?  So I suppose you'd like to go to downtown Derry and wave the Union Jack.  Go ahead, see how long you survive.

 Obviously you've been taking correspondence courses from the Cogzoid Shool of Reading Comprehension, for your posts so badly distort what I've written that I don't know where to begin. But here's a good place to start:
Quote
Since the vast majority of these newcomers came from Europe, the cultural differences, although substantial, were manageable.

So where did you get the idea that I believe that European culture is all of a piece? By the way, one of the European languages I'm learning is Irish Gaelic, so I'm well aware of the cultural differences within the not - so - United Kingdom.
Quote
Again, at this moment in history, these groups appear well assimilated in Western culture.  But please, read up about Berlin in 1939 and tell me that us Jews were blended seamlessly into the Western fabric.  Sheesh.  Now you might respond with "but that's not America."  Ok, go read some of Henry Ford's writings.  See how well he thought that Jews had assimilated.  As for Northeast Asians, clearly you are not from the West Coast, else you would have read some of the history of how Chinese and Japanese immigrants were treated there.

 Judas Priest, Hyperion, you do realise you're talking to a fellow Amurican? The public schools here won't let you escape until they fill your head chock full of the sins of the BED. Yes, Henry Ford's antisemitism was lingeringly and lovingly covered, as was Chucky Lindbergh's Nazi sympathies, the founding fathers's slaves, Japanese concentration camps, coolie labor and the Chinese Exclusion act, our broken treaties with the Indians, and on and on and on and on.......so what's your point? That I'm stupid for not having my brain sufficiently washed?
   In any case, you make my point for me. The German Jews were abominably treated, as were many NE Asians in Amurica. But what happened? Did they riot, loot, rape, and set our elderly on fire? No, for the most part, they assimilated. Wow, imagine that.
Quote

Quote  
2) Buy out those immigrants who don't, and send them back to their countries of origin (where they won't be held back by the BEDs who torment them so). Perhaps an average bribe of $5000/yr for every year spent in the host country (up to 10 years), plus all their liquified assets of course


How the #### would you do this without resorting to Gestapo tactics?  What do you do if the host country won't take them back?  What if the host country will imprison, torture, or kill them?  What if they refuse to go?  What if they have families here, and their children don't even speak the language of the old country?

 By the way, would you like to know where I got this idea? Hint: Google "Elon plan" and see what comes up. And no, my policy would not forcibly deport anyone. It would present a nice dilemma for those immigrants who so love to bitch about our country: leave, or admit that their native cultures are so dysfunctional that they couldn't be paid to live there. But I think many would go for this carrot, especially given the stick mentioned in part 3 of my plan. Even if they don't, the point will have been made.
Quote
And right now you are completely free to say whatever you want, as you're doing right now.  And I have the right to inform you that if you don't want to be treated like a racist, you might want to write something that less resembles Mein Kampf.

 You really should make a date with Mr. Google (per my request) before making these accusations. I'll deal with the rest of your post later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2005,05:57   

Hey Midnight, I don't have any reservations about Native American culture. In fact, I even like casinos... can I stay?

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2005,07:06   

By the way, Mr. Paley's Ectoplasmic self, sir - the Elon plan calls for forcible deportation of undesirables.  The United States has been doing this for some two hundred years - so now we have NA casinos.

It's facist.  Deal.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2005,07:34   

Quote
By the way, Mr. Paley's Ectoplasmic self, sir - the Elon plan calls for forcible deportation of undesirables.  The United States has been doing this for some two hundred years - so now we have NA casinos.

 Now, now, no doing Hyperion's homework for him. :D
By the way, I didn't say my plan was equivalent or even similar to the Elon plan, only inspired by it. And by the way, the country that came up with this idea (shhhhh...no telling, please!;)) has also used variations of my plan in the past. In fact, recent events may have been inspired by this model. But let's see what Hyperion has to say.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2005,07:51   

Quote
It's facist.  Deal.

 I'll be sure to pass your brilliant argument along to the heads of our mystery nation. By the way, which delightful American public school did you attend?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2005,08:49   

Mr. Paley is clearly trying to make a comparison to the government of Israel.  I'm not going to get into a discussion of Middle-East politics here, it is far to complicated and requires a decent knowledge of the languages, cultures, and history of the region, which is why most Westerners encounter so many problems when they try to involve themselves in the region.

When Mexico and Canada are armed to the teeth, call for our destruction, and try to invade several times, then one could compare the policies of America and Israel.  Until then, please stop playing word games and simply say what you mean.  The line between being disingenuous and outright lying is a very thin one, and you are getting very close.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2005,10:19   

Quote
Mr. Paley is clearly trying to make a comparison to the government of Israel.

 Very good. So you see the irony, then: Comparing my plan to the Nazis is just a little suspect when same plan is derived from a much harsher strategy formulated by the Nazi's victims. Now, you might say that America and Europe's situation is considerably different from Israel's, and I would agree. This is one (among many) reasons that my plan does not call for the forceful deportation of American citizens.
Quote
When Mexico and Canada are armed to the teeth, call for our destruction, and try to invade several times, then one could compare the policies of America and Israel.  Until then, please stop playing word games and simply say what you mean.  The line between being disingenuous and outright lying is a very thin one, and you are getting very close.

 I really don't understand what you're getting at. Uncle Paley doesn't speak in code - he says what he means. Not that this stops people from misunderstanding me. But on to your point.
   True, Mexico and Canada are no military threat to us, but this doesn't render immigration benign. Immigrants can drive law-abiding citizens out of certain regions merely by targeting them for crime, by rioting, and by soaking up social services. And some want a whole lot more. To be sure, extremists can be found in any group, but the behavior of many of our newcomers adds legitimacy to these concerns.
Quote
Quote  
3) Let freedom of commerce and association ring through the land. Abolish minimum wage, race laws, and any other useless, government-bloating, liberty-crushing machinations on the citizen. Let people pay what they want, live with whom they want, and say what they want.


Pointless mental masturbation.  Go take a poli sci class or two...even better, you could go get a degree in that subject, like I did.  But you know what, if you want to abolish these laws, go right ahead and write to your congressman, it's your right.  I wouldn't hold my breath.  Since neither congress nor the President would do that, how would you accomplish it?  

 How do you think many of these laws got established in the first place? By a selective, and unjust, interpretation of this law. But what is done may be undone, especially if the foundation was based on a lie.
Quote
In fact, Democratic Senator Hubert Humphrey, a sponsor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, vigorously denied charges that the act would lead to the categorization by race and the use of quotas.

He even promised to eat the paper on which the bill was printed if it led to equality of results.

Responding to charges that the act would lead to categorization and thus decision making by race, Humphrey stated on the Senate floor "In fact, the opposite is true. Title VII prohibits discrimination. In effect, it says that race, religion, and national origin are not to be used as the basis for hiring and firing."

But through a fairly rapid process of bureaucratic manipulation and court decisions, equality of opportunity was rejected as inadequate and replaced with equality of outcomes.

Fourteen years after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, signaling the postmortem to Humphrey’s non-discriminatory law, wrote in the famous Bakke decision, "I suspect that it would be impossible to arrange an affirmative action program in a race neutral way . . . In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race . . . In order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently."

Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, who made the case for a colorblind constitution as a lawyer for the NAACP, reportedly told his fellow Justice William O. Douglass, who commented upon the discriminatory nature of affirmative action, "You guys have been practicing discrimination for years. Now it’s our turn."

Let me repeat that last bit:
Quote
Now it’s our turn.

 Wow. No racial animus there.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2005,15:57   

Quote
The line between being disingenuous and outright lying is a very thin one, and you are getting very close.

 By the way, can anyone decipher this? I still don't know what this refers to. Hyperion? MidnightVoice? R's Grandkid? Anyone?

<chirpchirpchirpchirp>


Oh well:

Poi ch'èi posato un poco il corpo lasso,
ripresi via per la piaggia diserta,
sì che 'l piè fermo sempre era 'l più basso.

  Part three: closing the circle.

Quote
3) Let freedom of commerce and association ring through the land. Abolish minimum wage, race laws, and any other useless, government-bloating, liberty-crushing machinations on the citizen. Let people pay what they want, live with whom they want, and say what they want.
What are the advantages of this model? I'll fill in the details later.

 Yes, details. Why do this in the first place? Consider: How does a wise man solve a problem? Answer: He steps aside to let the problem solve itself.
  Like it or not, all cultures compete with each other. Immigration, in fact, is nothing more than citizens flocking to the victor, which is why America has an "immigrant" problem, while Liberia doesn't (it does, admittedly, have an "electricity" problem, a "transportation" problem, or a "please God let me keep my head attached to my shoulders for just one more %#$%! day!" problem, which might account for its lack of our problems). Thing is, once people enter a wealthy, secure nation, that nation can subsidize whatever fool habits they might have had, and even cultivate a couple of new ones in the bargain (America being the world's leading exporter in this area).
  This, frankly, will not work. We need cultures that can help us solve our problems, because our bonehead decisions affect the rest of the world. We also need a way to try out those bonehead ideas before thrusting them on the world. But how? Easy: let the communities decide.
 You want to live in a community in which strangers have sex in the bathrooms? Great, you do that, and I'll live in a community that waits for marriage. Let's run a race and see who wins. The life of a gangsta sound appealing? Go for it, just keep it away from me. Want to relive the good ol' days in Nazi-ville? Swell - I'll live with the Jews and we'll compare notes later. Sure, many communities will abuse their new freedoms. That's O.K.; they'll pay the price soon enough.
  What will happen, of course, is that the world will notice a trend. The communities that follow truth will miraculously be the only ones worth living in. Stable, productive, spiritual communities will flourish. People will crane their necks at the emerging miracle, and ask, "How can they do this? And how can we have what they have?" "I don't want to live a bitter life where neighbors eye each other warily, where gunshots are heard every day, where people have given up! Paley oh Paley let me join in your fellowship!" And I take them by the hand, and lead them to a world they never imagined.

 Can you handle the truth?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2005,18:43   

Ok, if you have a problem with the government of Israel, perhaps the place to vent such concerns would be on an Israeli board.  Good luck, though, as the Hebrew language contains no vowels and is incredibly difficult to learn.

In case you have not noticed, this is not a foreign policy board.  Furthermore, if you are interested in foreign policy or in the domestic policies of foreign countries, that you actually read more about them first.  Reading local newspapers for that country, or contacting the Council on Foreign Relations or the US State Department should give you some ideas for where to look if you wish to conduct further research.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2005,21:02   

Mr Ghost of Paley

Your Danté quote seems quite appropriate. Lost in Héll and unable to climb out.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2005,02:42   

GoP,

Might I suggest that you go to South Carolina?

Christian Exodus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2005,05:01   

Quote
Ok, if you have a problem with the government of Israel, perhaps the place to vent such concerns would be on an Israeli board.  Good luck, though, as the Hebrew language contains no vowels and is incredibly difficult to learn.

Meh - Hyperion, you are hopeless. I'm trying my best to follow your increasingly lunatic parsings of my posts, and coming up short. Another academic poisoned by postmodernism, I guess. I just hope that when your Mentos Moment © arrives, you can be coaxed down from the watertower before any damage is done. And yes, Foxy, I hold your philosophers responsible for this.
Quote
Mr Ghost of Paley

Your Danté quote seems quite appropriate. Lost in Héll and unable to climb out.

 Yes. You're righter than you'll ever know. Well, in a generation you will. Don't worry, when Uncle Paley hears your little fists hammering on the gates, he'll let you in. :)
Quote
GoP,

Might I suggest that you go to South Carolina?


 Ahhhh....but what happens when the community flourishes (as it will)? The feds will just force us to open up our paradise to a bunch a surly, evo-loving Starbucks cult members. That's why my plan must be implemented first. Get on your knees, then we'll talk.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2005,06:36   

Quote
In case you have not noticed, this is not a foreign policy board.  Furthermore, if you are interested in foreign policy or in the domestic policies of foreign countries, that you actually read more about them first.

While cheerfully ignoring and forgiving the gratuitous insult, let me explain the relevance to evolution. In my nation, local communities will dictate what gets taught and what doesn't. Once again, a natural selection of ideas will prevail. Can evolution handle the free-market, non-government funded competition? Ya'll have to raid your slush fund, that's for sure, and the cheerleaders might have to provide their own blow, but mainly, you'll have to adapt to the new intellectual standards if you want to survive. No circular reasoning, no ducking arguments, no ad homs. Mano a mano with the Wizard and Master, Queensbury style. We'll even provide the wheelbarrows for your prize hitters.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2005,07:12   

Quote
Mano a mano with the Wizard and Master, Queensbury style.


Mano a mano with "Goddidit".....How will we survive?

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2005,07:27   

Quote
...a natural selection of ideas will prevail. Can evolution handle the free-market, non-government funded competition?

Classic, just classic. Hmm, can Natural Selection survive natural selection? According to Paley, here is us be lamenting in the near future: "Oh noes, our beloved theory of Natural Selection has just been undone by... natural selection, Natural Selection is dead!"

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2005,08:57   

Quote
No circular reasoning, no ducking arguments, no ad homs.


Then why do you keep erecting straw men?

Quote
Meh - Hyperion, you are hopeless. I'm trying my best to follow your increasingly lunatic parsings of my posts, and coming up short.


lunatic parsings?  Geez, all I did was assert that this is not a foreign policy webboard.  Am I not correct?  Forgive me for trying to keep things on topic.  By the way, didn't you just say something about ad homs?

Quote
Can evolution handle the free-market, non-government funded competition?


See, here's the thing that I don't think you're getting about natural selection:  in order for it to operate, it requires that members of a population fail.  The whole point of the public school system, last time I checked, was to try to prevent that.

But ####, I happen to notice that there are thousands of private schools out there, completely unfunded and unregulated by the government.  Why then do so many of them teach evolution?  I attended a private college, and I still have my freshman bio book sitting on my shelf.  Funny how our private college, with no government funds or interference, operating purely in the free market, still chose to use a textbook which uses the theory of evolution to completely tie together all of biology.

Geez, if all you're going to do is call people names, litter your posts with logical fallacies, and then above all make assertions which simply make no sense, then why even post.  By the way, you still failed to tie this in with your original post about foreign policy.  Oh, by the way, have you ever actually taken a foreign policy course?  Have you ever taken a foreign policy course from a professor who had to cancel class for a week so he could fly to Japan to participate in an East Asian security summit, essentially sitting face to face with North Korean diplomats to talk about nuclear weapons?

Oh, and how old are you?

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2005,09:19   

Quote
Classic, just classic. Hmm, can Natural Selection survive natural selection? According to Paley, here is us be lamenting in the near future: "Oh noes, our beloved theory of Natural Selection has just been undone by... natural selection, Natural Selection is dead!"

 So why not apply your beloved, omnipotent, supercool mechanism to society, and watch it go to work? But noooooo, natural selection can build a rotary motor out of a bacterium's butt, make a Newton from sea scum and sunpower, craft a protein/gene/hormone cascade from colliding molecules, but to build a better society, for that we need politburo hacks. Well, if you want to spend your declining years in a tenement wearing a mustard-stained wife-beater, eating Kraft Velveeta slices in your underpants to the accompaniment of sirens, curses, and gunfire from outside your cracked window - go ahead. But I expect more from life.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2005,09:27   

Quote
Well, if you want to spend your declining years in a tenement wearing a mustard-stained wife-beater, eating Kraft Velveeta slices in your underpants to the accompaniment of sirens, curses, and gunfire from outside your cracked window - go ahead.


I object.  I don't like mustard, so I highly doubt I will have mustard stains on my wife-beater.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2005,15:56   

Quote
Then why do you keep erecting straw men?

  Nice to hear from you again, Hyperion. Let's make a deal: name one strawman of an evo/liberal/atheist position that I've erected, and we'll discuss it. But I'm a ghost, not a ghost-chaser, so you'll have to spoon-feed me a little.
Quote
lunatic parsings?  Geez, all I did was assert that this is not a foreign policy webboard.  Am I not correct?

 No, Mr. Hyperion, that's not all. You also said:
Quote
The line between being disingenuous and outright lying is a very thin one, and you are getting very close.

Then you followed with:
Quote
Ok, if you have a problem with the government of Israel, perhaps the place to vent such concerns would be on an Israeli board.

 Neither of which has been explained, let alone justified.
Quote
See, here's the thing that I don't think you're getting about natural selection:  in order for it to operate, it requires that members of a population fail.  The whole point of the public school system, last time I checked, was to try to prevent that.

 Which, of course, is precisely the problem. Without the possibility of failure, there is no incentive to improve.
Quote
But ####, I happen to notice that there are thousands of private schools out there, completely unfunded and unregulated by the government.  Why then do so many of them teach evolution?  I attended a private college, and I still have my freshman bio book sitting on my shelf.  Funny how our private college, with no government funds or interference, operating purely in the free market, still chose to use a textbook which uses the theory of evolution to completely tie together all of biology.

 Super. So why are you so afraid of a little competition in public schools?
Quote
Geez, if all you're going to do is call people names, litter your posts with logical fallacies, and then above all make assertions which simply make no sense, then why even post.

 What logical fallacies? Remember, your disagreement with my position does not constitute evidence against it.
Quote
By the way, you still failed to tie this in with your original post about foreign policy.

   It's all about competition. Between culture, lifestyles, and ideas. Modern liberal society has done its best to throttle competition wherever it can, mainly by restricting freedom. What's particularly pernicious about this is that liberalism, by its very nature, hates the stable, the successful, the fruitful, the functional . So you guys reward the losers, the disturbed, the perpetually angry and clueless. And then bemoan the existence of disparities.
Quote
Oh, by the way, have you ever actually taken a foreign policy course?  Have you ever taken a foreign policy course from a professor who had to cancel class for a week so he could fly to Japan to participate in an East Asian security summit, essentially sitting face to face with North Korean diplomats to talk about nuclear weapons?

 Expertise can sometimes blind one to the obvious. But your argument from authority is duly noted.
Quote
Oh, and how old are you?

 Ageless.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2005,20:47   

I suspect none of the "Doomsday" scenarios of social breakdown will happen. Theft over toil (as illustrated by Dawkins with his digger wasps) is only a good strategy till equilibrium is reached. The parasite cannot survive without the host. Repressive and exploitative regimes or anarchy could be considered extremes with an equilibrium where the general population is little enough affected that the simplest strategy is to endure.

Considering "Darwinian" ideas such as selfishness versus altruism, competition for scarce resources by an increasing population, etc., could be appropriate here. Evolution in action; maybe this thread is not so far off the mark.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2005,21:07   

PS

I'm still convinced Bill is a chain-yanking parody.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2005,22:35   

Someone on PT posted this excerpt from "A Man for All Seasons" which has some relevance to Bill's ideas.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2005,20:04   

Quote
Nice to hear from you again, Hyperion. Let's make a deal: name one strawman of an evo/liberal/atheist position that I've erected, and we'll discuss it. But I'm a ghost, not a ghost-chaser, so you'll have to spoon-feed me a little.


Quote
What's particularly pernicious about this is that liberalism, by its very nature, hates the stable, the successful, the fruitful, the functional


If you're going to disavow strawmen, you shouldn't use one in the same post.

Quote
No, Mr. Hyperion, that's not all. You also said:
Quote
The line between being disingenuous and outright lying is a very thin one, and you are getting very close.

Then you followed with:
Quote
Ok, if you have a problem with the government of Israel, perhaps the place to vent such concerns would be on an Israeli board.

Neither of which has been explained, let alone justified.


A:  You were being disingenuous in your original post by implying that you were discussing one country, when in reality you were discussing another.

B:  I don't think that the second quote requires explanation.  If you have a problem with the government of Israel, clearly venting such concerns on an Israeli board might be more effective.

Quote
Super. So why are you so afraid of a little competition in public schools?


Because public schools are not a free market.  Public schools are a reaction to a particular market failure called "common goods" or "public goods."  If you had ever taken classes on public policy, you would know this and not need to ask the question.  The reason why we have government-funded public schools is the same as the reason why we have a government-funded military for common defense.  Both are public goods, that is to say services which benefit the vast majority of the population.  The entire point of existence for a government is to deal with public goods of this nature, because the market will not provide them itself.  It is true that the market does provide education on a small scale in the form of public schools, just as the market provides martial defense in the form of private security, bodyguards, and separatist militias, but the market fails in both situations on the large scale.  Just as the guys who taught me CDT - bodyguard certification - are not going to defend this country from attack, private schools are not going to be able to effectively educated large numbers of students...and most importantly, such a failure winds up effecting the entire population as a whole.

Quote
What logical fallacies? Remember, your disagreement with my position does not constitute evidence against it.


Several times on this thread I have pointed out specific instances, complete with quotes and a description of the specific fallacy.

Quote
 Expertise can sometimes blind one to the obvious. But your argument from authority is duly noted.


Ok, an argument from authority is not a logical fallacy.  The logical fallacy that you are thinking of is the argument from inappropriate authority.  I was discussing my experiences in attaining a BA in political science, and my discussions with a specific professor who had attained a PhD in foreign policy and was widely regarded as an authority within that field by many organizations around the world.  That is not an argument from inappropriate authority, that is an argument from appropriate authority.  If all arguments from authority were fallacious, every single dissertation and thesis, including my own, would no longer require any citations whatsoever.

As for expertise blinding one to the obvious...maybe you've got a point with that.  I went to go see an orthopedist about this injury to my achilles tendon, but maybe I should have gone to see someone less blinded by their own expertise.

Oh, and that surgeon I had a few years ago who completely fixed a fairly serious medical condition...perhaps I should have just handed the scalpel to someone less blinded by their own expertise too.

Man, all these experts using their expertise to help people, it just makes me sick.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2005,05:12   

Quote
If you're going to disavow strawmen, you shouldn't use one in the same post.

    Except that this isn't a strawman. Liberal philosophy really is antipathetic to success - observe the mission statements of finer liberal fishwraps everywhere : "The job of a newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." Carry out an informal content analysis of just about any mainstream Hollyweird flick, tv show, or commercial: count the number of times that businessmen, corporate leaders, and suburbanites are portrayed as evil, incompetent, and impotent, then contrast with the number of positive portrayals. I have, and even bracing myself for the worst, was actually shocked at the pure hatred and propaganda emanating from our elites. Some commercials, for example, seem to serve no purpose other than ridiculing the BED. But please don't take my word for it; run your own trial.
Quote
A:  You were being disingenuous in your original post by implying that you were discussing one country, when in reality you were discussing another.

B:  I don't think that the second quote requires explanation.  If you have a problem with the government of Israel, clearly venting such concerns on an Israeli board might be more effective.

    Except I wasn't, and don't. Look, I don't know what you're implying here, but I happen to respect Israel, and while its government has occasionally overstepped itself, I think it's made the best out of a very bad situation. Alan Dershowitz himself would find my philosemitism embarrassing. Please can the insinuations and just tell me what you think my position is. Trust me, I won't be offended.
Quote
Because public schools are not a free market.  Public schools are a reaction to a particular market failure called "common goods" or "public goods."  If you had ever taken classes on public policy, you would know this and not need to ask the question.  The reason why we have government-funded public schools is the same as the reason why we have a government-funded military for common defense.  Both are public goods, that is to say services which benefit the vast majority of the population.  The entire point of existence for a government is to deal with public goods of this nature, because the market will not provide them itself.  It is true that the market does provide education on a small scale in the form of public schools, just as the market provides martial defense in the form of private security, bodyguards, and separatist militias, but the market fails in both situations on the large scale.  Just as the guys who taught me CDT - bodyguard certification - are not going to defend this country from attack, private schools are not going to be able to effectively educated large numbers of students...and most importantly, such a failure winds up effecting the entire population as a whole.

 This isn't an unreasonable position. Problem is, this doesn't work in modern America. Look, modern public schools are zoos - I've talked to teachers of all races, and almost every single one has condemned the system in the harshest terms imaginable. I'm talking about good Christian black teachers erupting in 40 minute rants, telling me stories of being cussed at, punched out, having desks thrown at them, tires slashed, "students" threatening them outside their homes, Chinese and White teachers switching careers after a couple of months in the field, being molested and encouraged to cover it up by spineless principals, massive and routine grade fixing, assaults,rapes, and bullying covered up to make the schools look safer - you name it, it happens. Heck, look at the standardized test scores of home-schooled students compared to their peers: they lap the field. And why not? Homeschoolers don't have to worry about their classmates going on a shooting rampage, or the guy snorkling blow at the adjacent desk. Theory is nice; reality is better.
Quote
Quote  
What logical fallacies? Remember, your disagreement with my position does not constitute evidence against it.


Several times on this thread I have pointed out specific instances, complete with quotes and a description of the specific fallacy.

 Then you should have no trouble pointing one out.
Quote
Ok, an argument from authority is not a logical fallacy.  The logical fallacy that you are thinking of is the argument from inappropriate authority.

  No, arguing from authority is always fallacious; society trusts the opinions of experts because it assumes they can marshall the evidence to support their position. So show me the evidence.
Quote
Man, all these experts using their expertise to help people, it just makes me sick.

  Ya, but the experts I turn to give me straight answers to my questions; they don't belittle me and accuse me of being a Nazi. But then, they don't have to.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2005,05:51   

Quote
Someone on PT posted this excerpt from "A Man for All Seasons" which has some relevance to Bill's ideas.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

 Pretty cool quote, but that's the problem with literature; it leads to differing interpretations. By the way, what do you, as a Frenchman, think of your nation's speech codes? I'm not looking for an argument; I'm just curious. And in your opinion, how do most French people feel? Surveys are nice, but I'd like to take advantage of your first-hand knowledge.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2005,09:27   

Quote
Except that this isn't a strawman. Liberal philosophy really is antipathetic to success - observe the mission statements of finer liberal fishwraps everywhere : "The job of a newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."


No, see, it's a textbook definition of a strawman.  If you had simply said "liberals tend to abide by the belief in comforting the afflicted and helping the downtrodden" or some such, that wouldn't necessarily be a straw man, but saying that liberals hate success, that is a straw man.  You are putting up a ludicrous one-sided portrayal of a particular political philosophy solely to knock it down.  That is a straw man argument at its most basic.

Quote
This isn't an unreasonable position. Problem is, this doesn't work in modern America. Look, modern public schools are zoos - I've talked to teachers of all races, and almost every single one has condemned the system in the harshest terms imaginable. I'm talking about good Christian black teachers erupting in 40 minute rants, telling me stories of being cussed at, punched out, having desks thrown at them, tires slashed, "students" threatening them outside their homes, Chinese and White teachers switching careers after a couple of months in the field, being molested and encouraged to cover it up by spineless principals, massive and routine grade fixing, assaults,rapes, and bullying covered up to make the schools look safer - you name it, it happens. Heck, look at the standardized test scores of home-schooled students compared to their peers: they lap the field. And why not? Homeschoolers don't have to worry about their classmates going on a shooting rampage, or the guy snorkling blow at the adjacent desk. Theory is nice; reality is better.


See, the problem here is that you're missing the most important part of the equation:  public schools must accept almost any student who enrolls.  So yes, public schools often do have to deal with emotionally unstable students, they often have to deal with violent students, they often have to deal with students who simply refuse to learn.  It is something that neither private schools nor homeschools have to deal with.  And yes, some homeschoolers do quite well on standardized tests, as do some public schoolers.  Your understanding of statistics is part of the problem here, though.  Current homeschoolers are not a representative sample of what we would see if all students were homeschooled; and more importantly, looking at the average scores in a public school test is misleading, you also need to look at standard deviation as well.  Much of the time, the top end of the scores at public, private, and home schools are actually very similar, it's just that the public schools also have to contend with the low end of the bell curve as well.

Just out of curiosity, did you attend public schools?  I did, although I went to a private college.  While much of what you mention about public schools does occur, those are rare instances that are cherry picked from data, completely ignoring many of the good things about public schools.

But my major point is that much of the "problems" that you see in public schools are issues that exist outside of the schools and would exist regardless of the existence of these schools.  The only reason why we see them in public schools is because they must accept almost all students, rather than being able to screen out students who misbehave, who disrupt class, who refuse to learn, etc.

The thing is, these students about whom you are complaining aren't going to be homeschooled anyways.  If we abolished the public schools, their parents wouldn't be teaching them at home, and they wouldn't be going to private school.  They'd be out on the streets all day, getting into g_d-knows-what trouble.  At least with public schools, they have some minimal supervision and the opportunity to educate themselves if they want.

Quote
No, arguing from authority is always fallacious; society trusts the opinions of experts because it assumes they can marshall the evidence to support their position. So show me the evidence.


No, arguing from authority is not always fallacious.  That you seem to believe this is disturbing.  It makes me question whether you actually comprehend the difference between appropriate authority and authorities who simply say things that you like to hear.

Quote
Ya, but the experts I turn to give me straight answers to my questions; they don't belittle me and accuse me of being a Nazi. But then, they don't have to.


Ummm....you probably didn't mean for this statement to imply what it seems to be implying, but ah....

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2005,10:13   

Quote
that's the problem with literature; it leads to differing interpretations.
Yes, for example the Bible in its many translations and editions, from Nicaea onwards, seems open to a wide variety of interpretations
Quote
as a Frenchman
 not until I can apply for citizenship next year.
Quote
think of your nation's speech codes?

If you mean the highly regulated media here, not much. Apart from the occasional gem, television is poor quality compared to BBC, newspapers are expensive and contain very little real critical analysis, tending to be deferential to politicians.
Quote
how do most French people feel?


Where I live (Languedoc-Roussillon, though some now want to change the name to Septimania, the area's old Roman name, may not be representative of the rest of France. People are generally tolerant of immigrants, as there has been immigration from Italy (encouraged and financed by the French government) at the end of the 19th century, and  a considerable influx of Spanish refugees and exiles (Los Rojos) around the time of the Spanish Civil War, but Parisians are generally detested. Amazingly, people from the Champagne area are also loathed, because the Champenois formed a large contingent of the Albigensien crusaders, so cultural memory can be quite long. The exception to this tolerance is to recent immigrants from their former colonies in North Africa, mainly Algeria. Les Arabes are not welcomed and ghettos exist in major towns and cities, with the results you have seen.

My French friends and neighbours are charming, formal in public, lively in private, parochial and chauvinistic. Most seem too concerned with their immediate situation to worry too much about world affairs, except when it involves their pride or their pocket. In brief, they are surprisingly normal, like people I knew back in England.

But I wax lyrical...
As time permits am happy to provide more info.

The Cathars now.. the Holy Grail... the legend of Mary Magdalene.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2005,10:27   

Quote
No, see, it's a textbook definition of a strawman.  If you had simply said "liberals tend to abide by the belief in comforting the afflicted and helping the downtrodden" or some such, that wouldn't necessarily be a straw man, but saying that liberals hate success, that is a straw man.

 O.K., O.K., liberal philosophy tends to encourage people to hate success, although some individuals may combat this trend in their personal lives. So, do you argue this essential point? I notice you said nothing about the rest of my argument.
Quote
See, the problem here is that you're missing the most important part of the equation:  public schools must accept almost any student who enrolls.

 Yes, under current law they must, but not under Paleylaw. Besides, public schools have had these concerns for 150 years without this buffet of horrors; why have these problems exploded since the mid-60's? I thought the Great Society was supposed to improve society, not wreck it.
Quote
Current homeschoolers are not a representative sample of what we would see if all students were homeschooled; and more importantly, looking at the average scores in a public school test is misleading, you also need to look at standard deviation as well.  Much of the time, the top end of the scores at public, private, and home schools are actually very similar, it's just that the public schools also have to contend with the low end of the bell curve as well.

 I'm not so sure this accounts for the entire difference, but I'll accept it for now. The point is, why should high achievers have to put up with people who don't want to learn? Even if the smart set gets sequestered in A.P. classes, they still have to face the other students when the bell rings. I just saw an article (no time to look it up now, but will later if pressed) about how asian kids are getting the #### whaled out of them by jealous thugs. The author tried to imply that the bullies were Italian and Jewish, but a check of school demographics indicated it was black kids. This is not unusual; what's unusual is if it gets reported.
Quote
Just out of curiosity, did you attend public schools?  I did, although I went to a private college.  While much of what you mention about public schools does occur, those are rare instances that are cherry picked from data, completely ignoring many of the good things about public schools

 Try telling that to a modern public schoolteacher. Out of time; more later....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
celtic_elk



Posts: 11
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2005,10:41   

GoP:

If you're so inclined towards competition, why not let the immigrants in and see which culture survives the free market?  Are you afraid you'll lose?

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2005,11:14   

Quote
O.K., O.K., liberal philosophy tends to encourage people to hate success


That is a straw man argument.  I don't understand why you seem to be confused on this point.  STRAW MAN.  It is a logical fallacy.  When you attempt to set up an opposing argument so that you can knock it down, you are using a straw man argument.

For instance, if I were to say "Conservatism is a label that closet racists use to make themselves look better," that would be a straw man.  It is a logical fallacy that contributes nothing to a debate aside from showing that one making the argument is an idiot.

Quote
I notice you said nothing about the rest of my argument.


Yes, because it is a straw man argument.  It is prima facie illogical and needs no further explanation for why it is incorrect.

Quote
Yes, under current law they must, but not under Paleylaw. Besides, public schools have had these concerns for 150 years without this buffet of horrors; why have these problems exploded since the mid-60's? I thought the Great Society was supposed to improve society, not wreck it.


Are you saying that school integration was the problem?  Because this is such a laughable explanation that I don't even know how to respond without being insulting.

Quote
I'm not so sure this accounts for the entire difference, but I'll accept it for now. The point is, why should high achievers have to put up with people who don't want to learn? Even if the smart set gets sequestered in A.P. classes, they still have to face the other students when the bell rings. I just saw an article (no time to look it up now, but will later if pressed) about how asian kids are getting the #### whaled out of them by jealous thugs. The author tried to imply that the bullies were Italian and Jewish, but a check of school demographics indicated it was black kids. This is not unusual; what's unusual is if it gets reported.


When I was in high school, the only kids I ever got in fights with were White, so I don't know what you're trying to imply here other than your own lack of experience.

What exactly is your proposal here?  That we go back to Jim Crow schools?

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2005,04:03   

Quote
That is a straw man argument.  I don't understand why you seem to be confused on this point.  STRAW MAN.  It is a logical fallacy.  When you attempt to set up an opposing argument so that you can knock it down, you are using a straw man argument.

 I think you are the confused one here. If I said, "Darwinists believe that the living world was created strictly by chance", that would be a strawman, since the evolutionary model also includes natural selection. But if I said, "The basic tenets of Darwinism encourage a hatred toward Christianity", then I would be making an empirical argument, which could then be tested and potentially falsified. Here is my problem with liberalism: it encourages its adherents to loathe successful people. This may very well be false, but you can only demonstrate this by appealing to sensory evidence. Which you haven't done.
Quote
When I was in high school, the only kids I ever got in fights with were White, so I don't know what you're trying to imply here other than your own lack of experience.

What exactly is your proposal here?  That we go back to Jim Crow schools?

 Ahhhh....nothing like a little cognitive dissonance to flush you out. You just hate stories about minority groups whaling on each other, don't you? Sorta refutes the liberal hypothesis that only whitey can hate.
 To address your point, no, I don't pine for the return of Jim Crow laws. Or race laws of any kind. If people of different ethnic groups wish to live, work, and love together, it ain't any of my nor the government's business. So why did I bring up the story in the first place? Three reasons:
 1)  It's a concrete example of how our media distorts reality to carry out its agenda (remember, the weasel who wrote this piece tried to imply that the thugs attacking the asian kinds were Italian and Jewish, rather than hispanic or black, which would reflect the school's demographics much better. This is evil.).
 2) It shows one of the fruits of hating the successful, which is physical violence directed towards high achievers. Believe me, there are plenty of articles out there just like the one above.
 3) Asian academic and economic performance demonstrate that minorities can be successful in majority-white nations if they just apply themselves. After all, if the Man is so powerful, then why is he so easily bested by Suzie Hu and her ilk? Liberals, please explain.
celtic-elk Wrote:
Quote
GoP:

If you're so inclined towards competition, why not let the immigrants in and see which culture survives the free market?  Are you afraid you'll lose?

 No, I'm afraid they'll lose, and then the government will gallop in to level the playing field. You know, sorta like what we've seen, and are seeing, in France, the U.K., and America.
 I've got to go for now, but I leave you with a little test:
 1) Copy n' Paste the Paleyplan and log on to the White Nationalist or Neo-nazi group of your choice (Note: the website must explicitly identify itself as such). Talley the responses, scoring a +1 for a positive reply, -1 for a negative reply
 2) Then copy n' paste a pro-evo, anti-ID argument, and do the same.
 3) Compare the scores. Which position was treated with more respect? Report back with your findings.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2005,06:00   

Quote
No, arguing from authority is not always fallacious.  That you seem to believe this is disturbing.  It makes me question whether you actually comprehend the difference between appropriate authority and authorities who simply say things that you like to hear.

 I'm sorry, but if you were right I would agree with you.

 An argument's quality has nothing to do with how many experts line up behind it; if it did, civilisation could never progress. True, an expert is more likely to know what she's talking about - that is why we weight her opinion more heavily than Joe Sixpack's. At some point, however, the expert must be willing to support that opinion with evidence gleaned from scholarship. If she cannot or will not do so, her opinion means zip. Nada. Nuttin'. And trotting out credentials in lieu of facts is often a signal that said expert is bluffing. Prove me wrong, Hyperion, prove me wrong.
Quote
Are you saying that school integration was the problem?  Because this is such a laughable explanation that I don't even know how to respond without being insulting.

 Not to be rude, but are you really from the United States? You certainly don't seem very conversant with our history. The Great Society program postdated Brown V Board of Education by at least six years. My public shool certainly taught this. Boy, did it ever.

Alan Fox said:
 
Quote
Where I live (Languedoc-Roussillon, though some now want to change the name to Septimania, the area's old Roman name, may not be representative of the rest of France. People are generally tolerant of immigrants, as there has been immigration from Italy (encouraged and financed by the French government) at the end of the 19th century, and  a considerable influx of Spanish refugees and exiles (Los Rojos) around the time of the Spanish Civil War, but Parisians are generally detested. Amazingly, people from the Champagne area are also loathed, because the Champenois formed a large contingent of the Albigensien crusaders, so cultural memory can be quite long. The exception to this tolerance is to recent immigrants from their former colonies in North Africa, mainly Algeria. Les Arabes are not welcomed and ghettos exist in major towns and cities, with the results you have seen.

  Thanks for the info; you gave me a slice-of-life I couldn't obtain anywhere else.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2005,06:57   

I had a lengthy reply to Cogzoid that didn't get through. I'll try again later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2005,08:20   

Quote
I think you are the confused one here. If I said, "Darwinists believe that the living world was created strictly by chance", that would be a strawman, since the evolutionary model also includes natural selection. But if I said, "The basic tenets of Darwinism encourage a hatred toward Christianity", then I would be making an empirical argument, which could then be tested and potentially falsified.


No, that's still a straw man argument.  All you're doing is saying that since you believe that to be the other side's argument, it must not be a straw man.  That doesn't change anything, actually.  You're still stating your opposition's side of a debate and then knocking it down.  That's a straw man.  Note that I am quoting your position, and then responding, that is how one avoids straw men.

Quote
1)  It's a concrete example of how our media distorts reality to carry out its agenda (remember, the weasel who wrote this piece tried to imply that the thugs attacking the asian kinds were Italian and Jewish, rather than hispanic or black, which would reflect the school's demographics much better. This is evil.).


No, you showed how one article, which you didn't even quote or cite, made a dumb reference to the ethnic identities of some students.  All that reflects is that either the author of that mysterious article was a moron, which is a definite possibility, or that you might not be remembering the article correctly.

Quote
2) It shows one of the fruits of hating the successful, which is physical violence directed towards high achievers. Believe me, there are plenty of articles out there just like the one above.


Oh, I don't doubt that some people will use physical violence as a means of acting out their insecurities.  That high school kids tend to do so is also not really news.  I'm just not sure exactly what your point is, other than that high school kids will bully other kids, which is about as novel an insight as "the Pope is Catholic" or "bears shit in the woods."

Quote
3) Asian academic and economic performance demonstrate that minorities can be successful in majority-white nations if they just apply themselves. After all, if the Man is so powerful, then why is he so easily bested by Suzie Hu and her ilk? Liberals, please explain.


Yes, and I also know many Black students who are academically successful.  I don't know exactly what your point here is, other than trying to say that the success of some minorities proves that there is no discrimination.

But let's take a step back for a second.  Your assertion is that Asians apply themselves and as a group wil succeed.  Having read the history of West Coast immigration, the building of the railroads, etc etc, how do you account for the fact that in the not-too-distant past, Asians were viewed in the West the same way that African Americans are viewed in the South?

Quote
An argument's quality has nothing to do with how many experts line up behind it; if it did, civilisation could never progress. True, an expert is more likely to know what she's talking about - that is why we weight her opinion more heavily than Joe Sixpack's. At some point, however, the expert must be willing to support that opinion with evidence gleaned from scholarship. If she cannot or will not do so, her opinion means zip. Nada. Nuttin'. And trotting out credentials in lieu of facts is often a signal that said expert is bluffing. Prove me wrong, Hyperion, prove me wrong.


Oh, I'm not saying that the credentials of an expert automatically make an argument.  Not at all.  What I am saying is that an argument from authority is not prima facie fallacious.  The argument should still stand or fall on its merits, but it is not fallacious merely because it is an argument from authority.  

Quote
Not to be rude, but are you really from the United States? You certainly don't seem very conversant with our history. The Great Society program postdated Brown V Board of Education by at least six years. My public shool certainly taught this. Boy, did it ever.


Yes, but apparently you weren't paying attention when they did.  Brown was decided in 1954, this is true, but actual desegregation took well over a decade to be put into effect.  In Virginia, where I went to public schools, the school system did not desegregate until the early 70s, which post-dates the Great Society.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2005,11:09   

Quote
Thanks for the info; you gave me a slice-of-life I couldn't obtain anywhere else.


No problem. Now what about some quid pro quo. A bit of background from you may shake my conviction that you are parodying.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2005,11:23   

Wikipedia suggests the logical fallacy of the "straw man" is committed if one does the following

Quote
1)Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.

2)Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

3)Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.

4)Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.


So I think Hyperion needs to substitute "misreprestenting " or mis-stating" for "stating" in

Quote
You're still stating your opposition's side of a debate and then knocking it down.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2005,11:29   

Dr Elderberry, where's that spellcheck button?

S/B "misrepresents"

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2005,11:08   

OK, let's hope I can get the message through this time....
Quote
You're still stating your opposition's side of a debate and then knocking it down.  That's a straw man.  Note that I am quoting your position, and then responding, that is how one avoids straw men.

 So what are the "real" implications of liberalism? Be careful, you're speaking to a recovered one.
Quote
No, you showed how one article, which you didn't even quote or cite, made a dumb reference to the ethnic identities of some students.  All that reflects is that either the author of that mysterious article was a moron, which is a definite possibility, or that you might not be remembering the article correctly.

 If I do cite it and show where the weaseling occurs, will you admit the possibility of deliberate slander? If not, what's the purpose of citing it?
Quote
Yes, and I also know many Black students who are academically successful.  I don't know exactly what your point here is, other than trying to say that the success of some minorities proves that there is no discrimination.

 Yeah, and I once met a woman who was 6'5". Shall I conclude that women are much taller than men on average? I don't doubt the existence of excellent black students, but you need to focus on general trends. As a group, Asians are dramatically more successful than African-Americans or mestizos, and substantially more successful than whites. How does the liberal model explain this, Hyperion? I mean, given their extensive history of discrimination, they should be below white kids in academic achievement, shouldn't they? By the way, hapas, Jews, and East Indians also kick ass. How is this possible?
Quote
Oh, I don't doubt that some people will use physical violence as a means of acting out their insecurities.  That high school kids tend to do so is also not really news.  I'm just not sure exactly what your point is, other than that high school kids will bully other kids, which is about as novel an insight as "the Pope is Catholic" or "bears shit in the woods."

 No, I'm afraid the incidents go way beyond mere bullying. But if you agree to my conditions, you'll find out soon enough.
Quote
But let's take a step back for a second.  Your assertion is that Asians apply themselves and as a group wil succeed.  Having read the history of West Coast immigration, the building of the railroads, etc etc, how do you account for the fact that in the not-too-distant past, Asians were viewed in the West the same way that African Americans are viewed in the South?

 Not really. Oh, I'm sure they were despised all right, but few bigots applied the same stereotypes to both groups. I will be happy to prove this if you wish.
Quote
Quote  
Not to be rude, but are you really from the United States? You certainly don't seem very conversant with our history. The Great Society program postdated Brown V Board of Education by at least six years. My public shool certainly taught this. Boy, did it ever.



Yes, but apparently you weren't paying attention when they did.  Brown was decided in 1954, this is true, but actual desegregation took well over a decade to be put into effect.  In Virginia, where I went to public schools, the school system did not desegregate until the early 70s, which post-dates the Great Society.

 So why link the two. Most historians don't. Here's a second bite at the source I quoted earlier:
Quote
But when historians refer to the Great Society, they usually mean the remarkable array of initiatives launched between 1964 and 1967 designed to expand the social welfare system and eliminate poverty.

 Please notice the timeline. And no integration, I see. Let's look at LBJ's scholastic policies, shall we?
Quote
It shattered a long-standing political taboo by providing significant federal aid to public education. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 offered assistance to underfunded public school districts throughout the country; the Higher Education Act of the same year provided aid to needy college and university students.

 Still no integration policy. Hmmmm... maybe another source will do the trick.
Quote
1954  
May 17
The Supreme Court rules on the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kans., unanimously agreeing that segregation in public schools is unconstitutional. The ruling paves the way for large-scale desegregation. The decision overturns the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling that sanctioned "separate but equal" segregation of the races, ruling that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." It is a victory for NAACP attorney Thurgood Marshall, who will later return to the Supreme Court as the nation's first black justice.  

 Yep. Just as I said. Let's pick up the second mention of integration (ignoring the incident at Little Rock):
Quote
1971 April 20
The Supreme Court, in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, upholds busing as a legitimate means for achieving integration of public schools. Although largely unwelcome (and sometimes violently opposed) in local school districts, court-ordered busing plans in cities such as Charlotte, Boston, and Denver continue until the late 1990s.

 What happened to all that mid-sixties Great Society immigration policy, Hyperion? No one seems to have noticed it but you.
 Apology accepted.
Alan Fox wrote:
Quote
Now what about some quid pro quo. A bit of background from you may shake my conviction that you are parodying.

 Maybe tomorrow.....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2005,13:31   

Quote
So what are the "real" implications of liberalism? Be careful, you're speaking to a recovered one.


I truly, honestly, do not care.  Debating the "implications" of a political philosophy is pointless mental masturbation.  One debates the implication of actual policy decisions, not some abstract philosophy.  I'm more interested in your implications, personally.

Quote
If I do cite it and show where the weaseling occurs, will you admit the possibility of deliberate slander? If not, what's the purpose of citing it?


If if if.  I honestly don't care about your piddly little article.  You said about three sentences from it, so I honestly have no idea what it would show.  Most likely, it would show that the author is an idiot, but since you haven't cited it, and therefore I haven't read it, I really have no idea what my reaction might be.  Are you too stupid or too immature to comprehend the utter futility of asking hypothetical questions about an unknown article written by an unknown author in some unknown source on some subject that might or might not be vaguely related to your point? Geez.

Quote
As a group, Asians are dramatically more successful than African-Americans or mestizos, and substantially more successful than whites. How does the liberal model explain this, Hyperion? I mean, given their extensive history of discrimination, they should be below white kids in academic achievement, shouldn't they? By the way, hapas, Jews, and East Indians also kick ass. How is this possible?


Well, I suppose if you reduce a widespread grouping of diverse social issues down to a one paragraph statement, you can make just about any assertion.  I honestly don't know why one group might have lower scores than any other group, and I'm not going to make a broad statement about something that is quite a bit more complicated than you're making it out to be.  If I had to make a guess, I'd go with luck and social trends.  I certainly wouldn't assert that  skin pigmentation is linked to intelligence...I mean, getting a tan on the beach doesn't affect one's intelligence.  What is your explanation?

Quote
No, I'm afraid the incidents go way beyond mere bullying. But if you agree to my conditions, you'll find out soon enough.


Huh?  What conditions?  You haven't said anything about any conditions, and no, I'm not going to stipulate to anything stupid like this.  I'm getting pretty damned tired of your disingenuous arguments where you coyly hint at one position, then pretend you were really saying something else.

Quote
Not really. Oh, I'm sure they were despised all right, but few bigots applied the same stereotypes to both groups. I will be happy to prove this if you wish.


Of course they applied different stereotypes.  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that both groups were discriminated against, so your assertion that Asians somehow assimilated easier is bull.  That being said, the discrimination against Asians was not as bad as what African Americans faced, certainly lynching was not nearly as widespread, and they weren't forced to go to separate, sub-par, underfunded schools.

Quote

So why link the two. Most historians don't.


Ummm, you were the one who brought up minority test scores and the Great Society.  Why do you continue to assert something, and then when people respond, say something along the lines of "why are you bringing this up?"

Quote
What happened to all that mid-sixties Great Society immigration policy, Hyperion? No one seems to have noticed it but you.


Again, huh?  You mentioned minority test scores and school violence and asserted that much of it was a result of the Great Society.  I asserted that this seemed like flawed logic given that at the time of the Great Society, schools were still not even fully integrated.

Really, honestly, do you suffer from some sort of mental illness?  Or are you simply an immature simpleton who just likes to try to irritate people?  If you think that you are somehow impressing anyone by knocking down straw men and playing word games, you're not.

If you actually have something to contribute to a discussion, one that you started, incidentally, then by all means, go ahead.  If all you wish to do is display your own lack of maturity, please go away.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2005,06:10   

Quote
If if if.  I honestly don't care about your piddly little article.  You said about three sentences from it, so I honestly have no idea what it would show.  Most likely, it would show that the author is an idiot, but since you haven't cited it, and therefore I haven't read it, I really have no idea what my reaction might be.

 Yeah, I'll bet you don't care. But I do. No student, be they black, white, asian, or other, should have to put up with what these kids do. But I'm sure the thugs have high self-esteem, and isn't that what it's all about?
Quote
Huh?  What conditions?  You haven't said anything about any conditions, and no, I'm not going to stipulate to anything stupid like this.  I'm getting pretty damned tired of your disingenuous arguments where you coyly hint at one position, then pretend you were really saying something else.

 Whatever. Support your position, if you have one. But we both know you don't, so you can quit bluffing.
Quote
Really, honestly, do you suffer from some sort of mental illness?  Or are you simply an immature simpleton who just likes to try to irritate people?  

 Why should I choose from only one? Can't I be a little of both? :D
Quote
If you think that you are somehow impressing anyone by knocking down straw men and playing word games, you're not.

 What word games? Please be clear on this.
Quote
If I had to make a guess, I'd go with luck and social trends.  I certainly wouldn't assert that  skin pigmentation is linked to intelligence...I mean, getting a tan on the beach doesn't affect one's intelligence.  What is your explanation?

 What does skin color have to do with culture? You do realise that I have explicitly avoided a genetic argument, don't you, Hyperion? Why can't you see this simple little fact?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2005,09:30   

Quote
Yeah, I'll bet you don't care. But I do. No student, be they black, white, asian, or other, should have to put up with what these kids do. But I'm sure the thugs have high self-esteem, and isn't that what it's all about?


Ok, but since you're still just referring to some article that I still haven't read, I can't really form an opinion on it, now can I?

Quote

Whatever. Support your position, if you have one. But we both know you don't, so you can quit bluffing.


At this point, I'm not sure what your position is, and you started the thread.

Quote
What does skin color have to do with culture? You do realise that I have explicitly avoided a genetic argument, don't you, Hyperion? Why can't you see this simple little fact?


This is what I mean about being disingenuous.  You discussed the different scores of various racial groups.  When I say that clearly skin color can't be the reason, you then accuse me of bringing it up.  Brilliant.

If you're arguing culture, though, you've got some problems.  For starters, there is no one single "Black" culture, any more than there is one single "Asian" culture, or one single "Jewish" culture, or one single "hispanic culture."  Now, at the individual level, I can certainly see how the culture in which one is raised can affect one's academic performance, but the problem is that culture really isn't tied so well with race.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2005,12:10   

Quote
Ok, but since you're still just referring to some article that I still haven't read, I can't really form an opinion on it, now can I?

 Nice dodge.
Quote
This is what I mean about being disingenuous.  You discussed the different scores of various racial groups.  When I say that clearly skin color can't be the reason, you then accuse me of bringing it up.  Brilliant.

If you're arguing culture, though, you've got some problems.  For starters, there is no one single "Black" culture, any more than there is one single "Asian" culture, or one single "Jewish" culture, or one single "hispanic culture."  Now, at the individual level, I can certainly see how the culture in which one is raised can affect one's academic performance, but the problem is that culture really isn't tied so well with race.

 Unsupported assertion. And a big surprise, no doubt, to the many black and Jewish people who seem to think otherwise.

  I guess I should celebrate the fact that you're starting to recognize and respond to my argument, as opposed to the <cough> strawmen you've been thrashing.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2005,05:06   

As someone who has read this thread from the beginning and largely stayed out of it, I'm throwing a flag on GoP right here and now.

The article, until presented is a non-argument and it is impossible to dodge a non-argument.

As for straw men, I've only seen them come from one side (GoP).  How does one create a straw man by debunking a straw man argument?  I.e. GoP you create a straw man and Hyperion debunks it, you are the guilty party, not Hyperion.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2005,06:00   

Quote
The article, until presented is a non-argument and it is impossible to dodge a non-argument.

 If you have read the thread from beginning to end, then how did you miss my three-part essay detailing my argument, consisting of:
1) Cash bribes to encourage emigration of people who hate our guts
2) Heavy immigration from Europe, Israel, and Northeast Asian countries to replace our departing malcontents
3) New legislation repealing all race laws
4) Letting the resulting freedom of association weed out the bad cultures amongst our remaining malcontents

 In addition, I proposed a test that anyone can do to verify that Hyperion's implications were false. Since you read the thread, surely I won't have to point out where, will I? And nobody took me up on this test.....hmmmm....veddy curious.
  Now you may think my plan is naive, fascist, counterproductive, whatever; that's your right. But direct your criticisms to the real model, not to Hyperion's paranoid misrepresentations of it. But you won't, and it's for the same reason that Hyperion didn't - the model is sound, rational, sane, and chock full of supporting evidence guaranteeing its success. Which explains the existence of speech codes. Can't let anyone see the posterior of General Butt-Nekkid.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
celtic_elk



Posts: 11
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2005,08:30   

"Ghost of Paley" wrote:

Quote
 
GoP:

If you're so inclined towards competition, why not let the immigrants in and see which culture survives the free market?  Are you afraid you'll lose?

No, I'm afraid they'll lose, and then the government will gallop in to level the playing field. You know, sorta like what we've seen, and are seeing, in France, the U.K., and America.

Reply:

So your solution to prevent government intervention is...government intervention?  How exactly is that an improvement, based on your let-competition-rule philosophy?

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2005,09:27   

:00-->
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 22 2005,12:00)
Quote
The article, until presented is a non-argument and it is impossible to dodge a non-argument.

 If you have read the thread from beginning to end, then how did you miss my three-part essay detailing my argument, consisting of:
1) Cash bribes to encourage emigration of people who hate our guts
2) Heavy immigration from Europe, Israel, and Northeast Asian countries to replace our departing malcontents
3) New legislation repealing all race laws
4) Letting the resulting freedom of association weed out the bad cultures amongst our remaining malcontents

 In addition, I proposed a test that anyone can do to verify that Hyperion's implications were false. Since you read the thread, surely I won't have to point out where, will I? And nobody took me up on this test.....hmmmm....veddy curious.
  Now you may think my plan is naive, fascist, counterproductive, whatever; that's your right. But direct your criticisms to the real model, not to Hyperion's paranoid misrepresentations of it. But you won't, and it's for the same reason that Hyperion didn't - the model is sound, rational, sane, and chock full of supporting evidence guaranteeing its success. Which explains the existence of speech codes. Can't let anyone see the posterior of General Butt-Nekkid.

The article, not the argument.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2005,14:47   

Quote
The article, not the argument.

 Oh well, the argument needed to be restated anyway, not that anyone's paying attention. And despite Hyperion cluck-cluck-clucking out on my eminently reasonable conditions, I'll cite it anyway:

The article.

 Now for the interesting bit:
Quote
In the last five years, census data show, Asians -- mostly Chinese -- have grown from 5 percent to nearly 10 percent of Brooklyn residents. In Lafayette High's neighborhood, Bensonhurst, historically home to Italian and Jewish families, more than 20 percent of residents are Asian.[my emphasis, not that the author deserves this bit]


  "But Paley", you'll squeal, "our dear Erin is just providing some background detail for a little verisimilitude! Cut her some slack!"
  To which I say: read the whole article. Not once, not once, is the race of the offenders mentioned. So why bring up race at all? To highlight the irony that Brooklyn has always been a haven for immigrants, and should be the last place to find violence against same?
 Hey, I've heard of a bridge in the area that's up for sale.
  "Oh, Paley, this is but one author! No need to jump to hasty conclusions!"

How about now?
Quote
 Mark Talo, who taught English as a second language at Lafayette but quit at the end of the recent school year, said the assistant principal had pulled two of the three Chinese students from his classes to deliver the news.  "The atmosphere at the school was very depressing," Mr. Talo said. "It was like being in the Deep South during Jim Crow."  


   Once again, a slur against white people, and no mention of the race of the perpetrators. Now for the likely reason:

   Ethnic Composition of Lafayette High

        White                               11.8
         Black                               45.8
         Hispanic                           25.1
         Asian and others              17.1

 Now, it's possible that the BEDs were responsible for the attacks, but don't you think this bit of info would have provided a slightly different perspective to the story?
   Of course, that may have been the problem.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2005,08:57   

GoP,
Please get to the point.
I have been reading this thread for a few days.
I think you have valid reasoning...But please stop wasting time.

  
Swoosh



Posts: 42
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2005,09:14   

Silly kids, it wont matter in fifty years or so.  Might as well work together to figure out how we're going to survive the Big Crash.  Borders, nations, flags, races, religions, blah blah blah.  Irrelevant pomp.  

Time. To. Evolve.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2005,05:04   

Quote
Silly kids, it wont matter in fifty years or so.  Might as well work together to figure out how we're going to survive the Big Crash.  Borders, nations, flags, races, religions, blah blah blah.  Irrelevant pomp.  

Time. To. Evolve.

  If my concerns are so much irrelevant pomp, then why are so many people on this board concerned about my plan? No national policy will make a difference, right? We might as well sit back in our rocking chairs and wait for Armageddon....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2005,08:32   

Quote
GoP,
Please get to the point.
I have been reading this thread for a few days.
I think you have valid reasoning...But please stop wasting time.

 I don't know what you're referring to; if supporting one's position is a waste of time, then I'm guilty as charged. But my main point (summarised twice with no rebuttal on the horizon....) is that we should use objective criteria when deciding who gets in. The question shouldn't be: "What can we do for you?", but rather, "What will you do for us?"
 The first nation that asks this question will watch its science, technology, and economy soar, while the rest of the first world devolves into Brasil or Colombia. But hey, if you want to live in a country where you have to fly to work behind a phalanx of bodyguards, it's your thing.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2005,09:57   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 28 2005,14:32)
The question shouldn't be: "What can we do for you?", but rather, "What will you do for us?"

Hmm...I haven't been following this discussion that closely, but I was under the impression that the U.S. is already asking what Bill considers to be the correct question. For someone hoping to emigrate from, say, Canada, the winning answer might be, "I can record an album that will sell half a million copies, thereby making lots of money for TimeWarner," and for someone wanting to emigrate from Honduras, it might be "I can harvest redleaf lettuce three times as fast as your average gringo, and I'll do it for half the money. Plus, after the harvest, I'll be happy to swab out your hotel bathrooms, too."

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2005,10:57   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 28 2005,14:32)
Quote
GoP,
Please get to the point.
I have been reading this thread for a few days.
I think you have valid reasoning...But please stop wasting time.

 I don't know what you're referring to; if supporting one's position is a waste of time, then I'm guilty as charged. But my main point (summarised twice with no rebuttal on the horizon....) is that we should use objective criteria when deciding who gets in. The question shouldn't be: "What can we do for you?", but rather, "What will you do for us?"
 The first nation that asks this question will watch its science, technology, and economy soar, while the rest of the first world devolves into Brasil or Colombia. But hey, if you want to live in a country where you have to fly to work behind a phalanx of bodyguards, it's your thing.

Ahhh Well,
If that is your whole point, I guess that I agree with you.

I was under the impression though that the USA already had a strong imigration criteria.

The UK on the other hand seems to be lacking in that area.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2005,12:26   

Quote
Ahhh Well,
If that is your whole point, I guess that I agree with you.

I was under the impression though that the USA already had a strong imigration criteria.

The UK on the other hand seems to be lacking in that area.


      Don't forget France and pretty much the rest of Europe. Their policy seems to be: If you reside in one of our former colonies or can sneak in, welcome! America's de facto policy: If you can provide a short-term economic benefit, then come on in, and we'll even ignore the rising crime and associated burden on social services! And who cares about cultural balkanization and regression to the mean, which means your kid might be more likely to join a streetgang than play John Henry to the gringo's Ferdinand the Bull! I mean, it's not like we could get Chinese to do the work, or better yet, invent the technology that makes sweatshop labor obsolete. No, that would be plumb crazy..........
    And if the Chinese won't do it, let the companies relocate. Or abolish the minimum wage. Or, like Bush, explore the idea of guest worker programs. But do something. This, in conjunction with the buyout program, will help restore one nation under God, indivisible. But you guys know this already.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2005,14:33   

One more thing. The genetic determinists (i.e. racists) would probably want to expel Central and South Americans from the U.S. in obeisance to racial "purity"; me, I just care about assimilation. Mestizos show some cultural potential, but the evidence suggests we restrict immigration to Asians, Jews, and Europeans for now. With the cultural and technological renewal sure to follow, we can heal the world, rendering Swoosh's scenario obsolete. And the world will bless America, and more importantly, God.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2005,08:07   

Lurkers, please notice the contrast between the cogent (if misguided) responses to my geocentrism paper and the strawmen/slander directed to my po' little immigration model. Or even the lack of interest (Murphy aside) in parrying my thrusts at the phylogenetic tree. Doesn't this seem to indicate that one position is, um, a little more solid than the others? But I thought that Darwinism and Liberal immigration philosophy are every bit as well established as the shape of the Earth!! That's one of the justifications for the speech laws and court decisions, right?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Dean Morrison



Posts: 216
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2005,11:35   

Lurkers
Ghost of Paley is a barmey old racist and 'White Nationalist' that doesn't deserve the time of day. He is not here to talk about evolution or intelligent design, and in my opinion is ignoring the rules of the board.
Please ignore this troll in future.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2005,08:37   

The Yenta sniveled:
Quote
Lurkers
Ghost of Paley is a barmey old racist and 'White Nationalist' that doesn't deserve the time of day. He is not here to talk about evolution or intelligent design, and in my opinion is ignoring the rules of the board.
Please ignore this troll in future.


 Lurkers, please notice the blantant smear tactics and attempts to have Paley silenced. And that nobody, not even Sir Wiggles, admonished the Yenta for stifling the free exchange of ideas.

A reminder from Jesus:
Quote
MT 7:1 Judge not, that ye may not be judged;
MT 7:2 for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you.
MT 7:3 But why lookest thou on the mote that is in the eye of thy brother, but observest not the beam that is in thine eye?
MT 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Allow [me], I will cast out the mote from thine eye; and behold, the beam is in thine eye?
MT 7:5 Hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine eye, and then thou wilt see clearly to cast out the mote out of the eye of thy brother.

 Couldn't have said it better myself. :)

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Dean Morrison



Posts: 216
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2005,11:18   

In the spirit of Christmas I'll forgive you barmy old racist: if I'd realised that you thought that the earth was the centre of the universe; and that the world was 6000 years old; I wouldn't have taunted you so much as you are obviously past help.
As my mum used to say 'stop picking your scabs!'
- couldn't have put it better myself.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 29 2005,03:40   

Quote
In the spirit of Christmas I'll forgive you barmy old racist: if I'd realised that you thought that the earth was the centre of the universe; and that the world was 6000 years old; I wouldn't have taunted you so much as you are obviously past help.

 And since you can't respond to (let alone refute) my arguments, what does that say about you?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,10:32   

Every good model should make predictions. My model predicts that immigrants drawn from countries which are culturally distinct from Western Civilisation will have a difficult time adjusting to the host country. And now, there are some signs that Canada's violent crime is rising:
             
Quote
In Canada, guns and gangs are a relatively new phenomenon, particularly in Toronto, known as "Toronto the Good" for its traditionally safe streets and low homicide rates. There were 52 deadly handgun shootings in the city in 2005, compared with 12 in 1995. Police and social workers alike attribute the acts largely to young black males - many of whom are the children of West Indian immigrants - who feel marginalized and drop out of school early to join the "gangsta" culture where they make quick money through drugs, guns, or prostitution.

What makes this interesting is that most of Canada's non-white immigrants are Chinese and East Indians; yet the criminals are largely Jamaican immigrants who've adopted the gangsta lifestyle of African Americans. Hmmmm......the Chinese, Indians, and Jews are assimilating nicely, while those who reject Western Values aren't. What a shock! Who'd have thunk it......??????

A wise person wrote:
Quote
It's a tough burden - always being so darn correct.  It's a lonely destiny.

But somebody's got to do it!


--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,10:43   

gees, only took you six months to respond!

that's uh, great...

did you go out and buy some shovels, and figure they can be used to dig up rotted corpses as well as to shovel s*it?

Quote
A wise person wrote:
Quote  
It's a tough burden - always being so darn correct.  It's a lonely destiny.

But somebody's got to do it


interesting... now where did i just see that...

hmm...

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,10:49   

By the way, I won't do my political thing until I produce more of the geocentric model, but I've been wanting to dump my political stuff here for some time. Wes should be OK as long as I'm not creating a new thread for my rants....besides, it's got the older stuff for those who want some background.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,15:35   

Ghost:

You went on and on about how you needed to have time to work on just one of your promises, and even suggested to be banned from other threads, and declared that you'd answer only to those two or three people you had the debates with first, so you wouldn't get distracted...
And finally, after you post some vague math and not even a crude sketch of your model, you revive another, clearly provoking, thread on a subject you know is heated, and will be debated with zeal. And why would you do that, If you didn't want to discuss this now?
But I suppose it's ok because you're "good at multitasking", like you said then. Yeah, right.
How about opening a couple more threads then, to discuss Tiktaalik and guts-to-gametes and scale-free networks, Mr. Dualcore?

Spare me, Ghost. I'm not biting. Work on disproving all aspects of modern astronomy and physics, and leave your political rants for another time.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,20:36   

So…how about that Parallax, Bill?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,12:44   

Guys -

Asking prisoners about their religion is like asking teenage boys about their sexual activity. The only difference is, prisoners lie to get out while teenagers lie to get in.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,13:14   

GoP,

I think your larger point is that when science mixes with liberal politics, science always gets corrupted?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,13:17   

Okay, let's only talk about people whose religious beliefs were known before they got to prison. Then let's look at those whose religious affiliations are known after they get out. Surely it's not hard to figure out who goes to church and who doesn't. Likely there are plenty of religious people who don't go to church, but I doubt there are many agnostics/atheists who do.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,14:55   

eric:
             
Quote
Okay, let's only talk about people whose religious beliefs were known before they got to prison. Then let's look at those whose religious affiliations are known after they get out.

            I guess we could, but basically I'm not a big fan of taking anything a criminal says seriously, even if it supports my point of view. For example, I'm sure if you charted criminal behavior against the tendency to embrace Islam among American citizens lacking a Middle Eastern background, you'd probably find a positive correlation between the two. Aha! Islam leads to evil deeds, correct? Problem is, many Americans "embrace" Islam to symbolise their cultural withdrawal from mainstream society. A disconnect from mainstream America often signals a dislike for Judeo-Christian values. And what personality tends to actively oppose normative Judeo-Christian values? Why, the criminal personality, of course. In other words, Islam soaks up a wide range of political/racial/ideological malcontents who are eager to commit crime anyway, and are just looking for a trigger. The religion is just a convenient way to tweak mainstream society.
            Or take a hardcore sociopath like Ted Bundy. If I recall, he was a conservative atheist. (Even if he wasn't, the following still holds.) The atheism must have driven him to a life of crime, right? But most psychologists agree that sociopaths suffer from an extreme narcissisim that blots out everyone else. Someone with that mindset isn't going to kneel before God, regardless of his religion's charms. To conclude that atheism drives criminal behavior in this case would be to get the chain of causation precisely backwards. So while I do believe that atheistic philosophy harms society in the long run, I reject a simplistic link between religion and criminal behavior.

thordaddy:
     
Quote
GoP,

I think your larger point is that when science mixes with liberal politics, science always gets corrupted?


I try never to say "always". :D  :D  But it is true that liberalism rejects logic that opposes its fuzzy nature, and in that sense it functions as a religion. If you study liberal philosophy, you'll see that it's underwritten by an naive belief that happy thoughts are true thoughts, and that hope can be made flesh. I can't think of a more counterproductive approach to truth than that.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,14:58   

*sigh* now if only you could spin your feux models as fast as you spin your projections, you could be far more productive.

Hey, you promised that if there was a vote on a preference for your "models" that you'd work on whatever was voted for.

giving up already?

that's not like you.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,15:06   

Quote
Hey, you promised that if there was a vote on a preference for your "models" that you'd work on whatever was voted for.

giving up already?

that's not like you.


Ya'll didn't meet the 18-vote minimum. But nevertheless, I'll continue to work on my model. Why give up when nobody's given me a reason to do so???????? I'm more optimistic than ever!

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,15:17   

more like in more denial than ever...

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,20:39   

Quote (thordaddy @ June 06 2006,18:14)
GoP,

I think your larger point is that when science mixes with liberal politics, science always can gets corrupted?

Edited for precision.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,00:23   

GOP, I don't really care for this discussion, but one little irk I have.

An appeal to Authority is fine and valid in an argument. This is NOT a fallacy. However, there is a fallacy known as "The FALSE appeal to Authority".

Example of a VALID appeal to authority:
1) Prof in Physics, Dr X stated that GR is …

Example of the fallacy
1) Prof in Biology, Prof Y stated that GR is …

Get the idea?

Oh, oh, one more sample of the fallacy, for say, a discussion in Biology.
1) The Bible states that …

Get it yet?

  
Dean Morrison



Posts: 216
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2006,03:40   

I wondered what had happened to the barmy old racist? Realised you couldn't pull the wool over peoples eyes with the Googletrawled math then GOP?... and you ran away from  'guts to gametes' a long time ago. Thought you might be on safer ground with a bit of racism?

You really are a tiresome old man.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,12:00   

Yep. The liberal media has finally gone nutsville, where The New York Times is the paper of record.

     
Quote
But the Times article, “17 Held in Plot to Bomb Sites in Ontario,” by Ian Austen and David Johnston, is much more remarkable in its politically correct delicacy than Simon lets on. It would be worthwhile to take a look at just how the Times manages to publish an 1,843-word article about a Muslim terrorist ring without ever saying that they are Muslims. The story begins:

OTTAWA, June 3—Seventeen Canadian residents were arrested and charged with plotting to attack targets in southern Ontario with crude but powerful fertilizer bombs, the Canadian authorities said Saturday.

Ok, they were Canadian residents. And who were these Canadian residents? In the sixth paragraph, the Times says that they are mainly of “South Asian descent,” and had no known connection with Al Qaeda:

The 17 men were mainly of South Asian descent and most were in their teens or early 20’s. One of the men was 30 years old and the oldest was 43 years old, police officials said. None of them had any known affiliation with Al Qaeda.

In the seventh paragraph, a Mounted Police assistant commissioner is quoted saying:

“They represent the broad strata of our society. Some are students, some are employed, some are unemployed.”

Students, employed, unemployed—yes, that’s quite a broad stratum, isn’t it? Truly taking in all the elements of society. Fortunately, Malkin lists the 12 of the 17 suspects who are adults:

1. Fahim Ahmad, 21, Toronto;
2. Zakaria Amara, 20, Mississauga, Ont.;
3. Asad Ansari, 21, Mississauga;
4. Shareef Abdelhaleen, 30, Mississauga;
5. Qayyum Abdul Jamal, 43, Mississauga;
6. Mohammed Dirie, 22, Kingston, Ont.;
7. Yasim Abdi Mohamed, 24, Kingston;
8. Jahmaal James, 23, Toronto;
9. Amin Mohamed Durrani, 19, Toronto;
10. Steven Vikash Chand alias Abdul Shakur, 25, Toronto;
11. Ahmad Mustafa Ghany, 21, Mississauga;
12. Saad Khalid, 19, of Eclipse Avenue, Mississauga.

You can see what a remarkably diverse cross section of society is represented here.
[....]
And that’s it. The word “Muslim” appears twice in the article, once to identify a Canadian Muslim organization which is unconnected with the suspects, and once to say that by busting the terrorists, law enforcement has done a great service to the Muslim community. This makes it sound as though the terrorists were threatening the Muslim community. Needless to say, Austen and Johnston do not quote any Canadian personage to the effect that law enforcement has done a great service to Canadian society by busting these Muslim terrorists.
[....]
And that’s it for the word “Islamic,” except for the 34th paragraph, where Fatah, making a point similar to the one I quoted earlier, refers to unspecified “many Islamists,” who, he says, are a danger to other Muslims, not to Canada in general:

“This is the work of people who believe they are victimized when they are not,” Mr. Fatah said. “Many Islamacists are preying on the Islamic community.”

Fatah’s reference to “many Islamists” suggests, without actually saying so, that the 17 suspects are themselves Islamists. And that’s as close as the story gets to the truth.
To sum up, in this 1,843-word article, the word “Muslim” appears twice, variations on the word “Islamic” appear three times, and nowhere do Austen and Johnston plainly identify the suspects as being “Muslims” or “Islamic.”

Try to picture the mental process of these Times reporters as they so carefully and systematically work around the fact that the suspects are Muslims, hinting at it one way, hinting at it another way, coming ever closer in a kind of tease, but never quite stating the truth outright. Such an exercise requires conscious effort, and conscious bad faith.


So true.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,13:18   

Paley, aren't you supposed to be out amassing evidence to prove the earth is flat, or something?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,14:41   

A.C.:
   
Quote
Paley, aren't you supposed to be out amassing evidence to prove the earth is flat, or something?

This thread serves its purposes. Speaking of which:
   
Quote
Behind such sad numbers, and in the works of literary geniuses like Vladimir Nabokov, does the reality of human nature lie.  It is all too much for our prim, sissified, feminized, swooning, emoting, mealy-mouthed, litigation-whipped, “diversity”-terrorized, race-and-“gender”-panicked society.  We shudder and turn away, or write an angry email.  The America of 1958, with all its shortcomings, was saltier, wiser, closer to the flesh and the bone and the wet earth, less fearful of itself.  (It was also, according to at least one scholarly study, happier.)

One of the first media sensations ever to impinge upon my consciousness was the visit to Britain by rock star Jerry Lee Lewis  in May 1958, four months before Lolita’s American debut.  This was supposed to be a concert tour, but 22-year-old Jerry had brought his wife Myra along, and the British press got wind of the fact that Myra was only 13.  This wasn’t an unusual thing in the South of that time; Jerry himself had first been wed at 15 (when he already had a drinking problem).  Myra was his third wife, and also his second cousin once removed.   Back then country people grew up fast and close to their kin.  Neither Jerry nor Myra could understand what the fuss was about.  He: “I plumb married the girl, didn’t I?”  She: “Back home you can marry at 10, if you can find a husband.”  (This was not true, even in the South, though Myra likely believed it.  She also, according to the British press, believed in Santa Claus.)  It didn’t help that Jerry’s new record was titled High School Confidential.

How long ago it seems!  Nowadays our kids are financially dependent on us into their mid-twenties, and can’t afford to leave home till they are 35.  Marriage at 13?  Good grief!  And so, while Lolita met with a fair share of disapproval in 1958, and was denounced from many pulpits, I believe its reception would have been much more hostile if it appeared now.  It would also have been differently politicized.  Back then the complaints came mostly from social conservatives, who I imagine would disapprove of Lolita just as strongly today.  The Left, however, almost unanimously championed the book.  Would they still do so?  A woman!  Who was also a child!  Exploited by a man!  And both of them from stifled, self-denying bourgeois backgrounds!  Oh, that evil Patriarchy!  It’s amazing how far this stuff has spread:  There is a strong whiff of it in Azar Nafisi’s memoir Reading Lolita in Tehran  (whose author went to college in the U.S.A.)  

Here you see one of the paradoxes of our strange times.  Our women dress like sluts;  our kids are taught about buggery in elementary school; “wardrobe malfunctions” expose to prime-time TV viewers body parts customarily covered in public since “the lamented end of the Ancient World B.C.” (Humbert);  our colleges have coed bathrooms;  songs about pimps rise to the top of the pop music charts; yet so far as anything to do with the actual reality of actual human nature is concerned, we are as prim and shockable as a bunch of Quaker schoolmarms.  After forty years of lying to ourselves, we are now terrified of the truth.  Which is an unhappy thing, because the truth is bearing down on us fast.

What would Vladimir Nabokov say if he could view our present scene?  I think he would weep.  Political Correctness was only embryonic in the mid-1950s, and Nabokov poked some gentle fun at it in Lolita:

…according to the rules of those American ads where schoolchildren are pictured in a subtle ratio of races, with one—only one, but as cute as they make them—chocolate-colored round-eyed little lad, almost in the very middle of the front row.

He would have been horrified to see how this how these silly but harmless and well-intentioned courtesies have swollen into a monstrous dreary tyranny, shutting off whole territories of speech and thought, acting as a sheet anchor to hold back our commercial and intellectual progress, corrupting our constitutional jurisprudence, turning unscrupulous mountebank attorneys into billionaires, and making art like Nabokov’s incomprehensible to millions who, had they been born a few decades earlier, would have gotten from it such unexpected, unimagined delight as I got among the birdsong and bowlines in the Sea Cadets’ hut at Northampton School for Boys 44 years ago.

That we are stupider, coarser, duller, lazier, narrower of mind, more fearful of strangeness, more abject, and more craven than the Americans of 1958 is bad enough.  What really shows that our civilization is, and richly deserves to be, on its way out, is that we are less able to savor and love a surpassingly beautiful work of art like Lolita.

How ironic that an essay about a pervert (Humbert^2, not Nabokov) illuminates so well the perversity of our own time. I recommend Pale Fire.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,14:51   

I'm totally bored of your attempts at psuedo-political idiocy.  I'm still waiting for you to do something interesting with your geocentric model.

why don't you make this thread really useful?

just use it to announce when you've finished your geocentric model.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,19:07   

Paley, do you have anything to actually say about your scientific ideas? Because if all you have is rightwing 'culture wars' silliness, we have DaveScot for that...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,10:15   

Interesting post by Steve Sailer on the paradox between Jewish achievement in science, art, and law vs. their embrace of daffy cultural and political trends. Part of it is simply the hyperabundance of ideas flowing from Jewish minds - if you spend enough time formulating hypotheses, some of them are bound to miss:
     
Quote
One of the fascinating aspects of Jewish culture, to me, has been the fact that we are everywhere on the ideological spectrum. The most prominent libertarians? Check. The most prominent communists? Check. The biggest neo-conservatives? Check. The biggest anti-war demonstrators? Check. Josh Marshall and Matthew Yglesias [well, both supported the war back in the beginning] are members of the tribe, but so are Kristol and Podhoretz. One of the reasons why it's so easy to come up with preposterous statements about Jews. in general, is that specific Jews can be found propagating almost any point of view imaginable -- and doing it well enough to be seen as a prominent figure in whatever movement they join.





Indeed. Similarly, the most anti-Communist English-language literary giant of the last 40 years, Tom Stoppard, discovered as a middle-aged man that he's 100% Jewish.

For example, here are two fairly honest depictions of two utopian groups that were diametrically opposed in politics but in which Jews played dominant roles: Students for a Democratic Society and the Ayn Randers:

There seems to be more to the story, however, and Sailer discusses it in some depth. I did find an interesting passage worth sharing:
     
Quote
It's a beautiful trip, full of chalet-like villages nestled in valleys. Churches are everywhere. Windmills circle in the breeze. On the train, everyone's friendly. Americans play video games or yap on cell phones; Germans read books. It's such a civilized country. Sitting on that train, listening to reassuring announcements, I tried to imagine how hard it must have been for German Jews to recognize the early days of you-know-what. Maybe that's why they took so long to get out. Good folks can't turn bad, can they? But they did, and they could again, and so could the Brits, and so could we.

[my emp]

Boy, aint that the truth! Funny thing is, there was a time when Americans would be quietly reading books next to the Germans. But as our society has abandoned one civilisational norm after another, we've reverted to a crude, self-centered ethos that rejects learning, quiet reflection, and respect for other people's rights in favor of an in-your-face brattishness. For example, I remember a time when people actually whispered in public libraries. No longer. Just this minute, I had to tell two gentlemen to take their ringing cell phones and loud conversation elsewhere. They started in on the usual outraged/hustling/angry minority bit but when they saw I wasn't fooled or intimidated, finally lapsed into a surly silence. But they could have just as easily been white --in fact, just the other day I had to shush a white "man" and his son who were noisily arguing about a homework assignment the child had apparently procrastinated on. Germans, appreciate your culture while you still can. Once you lose it, you can't get a new one at the dollar store.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,10:31   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 13 2006,00:07)
Paley, do you have anything to actually say about your scientific ideas? Because if all you have is rightwing 'culture wars' silliness, we have DaveScot for that...

Out of curiousity, why bother to respond to him?  He's 'soap-boxing' and wasting bandwidth, apparently because he feels that this is his own personal blog.

He shows about the same level of intellectual acuity as Gribbit.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,11:00   

Hey Rilke's Granddaughter, congratulations on your thesis. It sounds interesting, although I'm sure that some of it would be above my head. But I do object to a few things you said:
   
Quote
Out of curiousity, why bother to respond to him?

Of course, no one is obligated to respond to my posts, but I like to throw out ideas from time to time just 'cause I find it interesting. Notice that I'm confining my politics to this thread so that nobody will be forced to encounter them. Since the Darwinistic mindset influences all aspects of culture, I think that everything's interconnected and therefore this thread is relevant.
 
Quote
He's 'soap-boxing' and wasting bandwidth, apparently because he feels that this is his own personal blog.

He shows about the same level of intellectual acuity as Gribbit.

No, I'm not wasting bandwidth. You'll see how prescient my rants are in 25 - 40 years, and then you'll wish you listened to my advice. I predict that my rants and models will be the only reasons people visit this site 50 years from now. That sounds egotistical but I think that my insights are available to anyone with a clear mind and courageous heart. Just spend some quality time thinking about the future instead of just parroting the catchphrases of the smartset and you can become a true elder. You seem to have the mental and scientific acumen to take that first step.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,11:07   

By the way, I shouldn't have said that my posts would be the only thing of lasting value: AFDave's discussion of the RATE project and some other things will also intrigue future generations. But time is the only true critic of one's ideas....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,11:27   

Look, I know you're jealous of the attention that Target-Drone Dave is getting, but that's the whole point of a target-drone.

Get over yourself, my child; you're not that important.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,11:55   

Quote
Look, I know you're jealous of the attention that Target-Drone Dave is getting, but that's the whole point of a target-drone.

Isn't it funny how quickly speculation transforms into settled fact in the evo mind? It appears that you're enamored of Number Nine's random guesses, and recognising him as the "alpha male" of your tribe, proceed to parrot his every thought. This is so unworthy of you; I know women are usually timid about proposing uncomfortable ideas, but don't be afraid: think for yourself.
Quote
Get over yourself, my child; you're not that important.

But my ideas are.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,12:11   

Quote
That sounds egotistical but I think that my insights are available to anyone with a clear mind and courageous heart.


more like available to anyone who has smoked too much crack.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Shirley Knott



Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,12:14   

Paley, so far your ideas not only are not important, they are not even ideas.
They hardly rise to the level of notion.

Pfeh.

Shirley Knott

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,12:19   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 16 2006,16:55)
Quote
Look, I know you're jealous of the attention that Target-Drone Dave is getting, but that's the whole point of a target-drone.

Isn't it funny how quickly speculation transforms into settled fact in the evo mind? It appears that you're enamored of Number Nine's random guesses, and recognising him as the "alpha male" of your tribe, proceed to parrot his every thought. This is so unworthy of you; I know women are usually timid about proposing uncomfortable ideas, but don't be afraid: think for yourself.
Quote
Get over yourself, my child; you're not that important.

But my ideas are.

Look, Mr. Ectowhisp, when you actually have an idea, you just come and tell us all about it, OK?  Otherwise we'll be watching the amazing entertainment provided by the 2nd Lt. "I lie for God." Dave.

He's got you beat all hollow.

Bye, now.

  
Nebogipfel



Posts: 47
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2006,23:45   

Quote
Isn't it funny how quickly speculation transforms into settled fact in the evo mind?


This from someone who believes Apollo, Voyager and Cassini were faked.

Quote
You'll see how prescient my rants are in 25 - 40 years, and then you'll wish you listened to my advice. I predict that my rants and models will be the only reasons people visit this site 50 years from now.


Erich von Daniken probably thought something similar in the 1970's. I must say, you've got the B-movie mad scientist persona just about perfect.  :D

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2006,05:45   

Which of your um...ideas will I be reading about in a textbook in 40 years, GoP?

1. The Earth is flat

2. The Earth is the center of the Solar System (well, certainly the textbook will identify it as the Earthal System)

3. Logical argumentation is best advanced through multiple non-sequiters

I think they are all equally likely, so I was wondering which you were really shooting for.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2006,06:58   

Blipey:
Quote
2. The Earth is the center of the Solar System (well, certainly the textbook will identify it as the Earthal System)

That's one idea, although it will take much more than 40 years to gain acceptance.

Here are some others:

1) The Earth is very young (apprx 6000 years)

2) Our immigration policy is not only counterproductive, but suicidal.

3) Macroevolution is bankrupt

4) The Bible is accurate on historical/scientific issues.

All of these statements will eventually be proven valid. But 40 years is too optimistic for everything except 2).

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2006,08:27   

Hey GoP:

If you want that geocentric theory in books sooner than later, how about posting the details of your model somewhere.

And, I'm very interested in what you think about the non-sequiter argumentation method.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2006,09:13   

blipey:
Quote
Hey GoP:

If you want that geocentric theory in books sooner than later, how about posting the details of your model somewhere.


Coming tonight.

Quote
And, I'm very interested in what you think about the non-sequiter argumentation method.

Well, liberals tried it for 40 years and it hasn't worked yet, so maybe it's time to ditch it.  ;)

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2006,09:30   

You know what's funny about this thread? Even though people have used my politics as a platform to hurl the most disgraceful ad homs imaginable (see the Ann Coulter thread for the latest), not a single person can explain what's wrong with my immigration plan, or even advance a <cough> ghost of a counterargument. It reminds me of a line in a movie:

"That's why he's the best. Nobody ever beats him -- not many want to try."

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2006,12:57   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 19 2006,14:30)
You know what's funny about this thread? Even though people have used my politics as a platform to hurl the most disgraceful ad homs imaginable (see the Ann Coulter thread for the latest), not a single person can explain what's wrong with my immigration plan, or even advance a <cough> ghost of a counterargument.

On the other hand, they sure can find problems with your geocentrism idea (I say "idea" rather than "model," because so far there is no model) faster than you can present even the skeletal features of your idea. Usually, you expect critics to play catch-up with a new theoretical structure, but in this case, the theory is playing catch-up with the criticisms.

I'm guessing you're getting more criticisms on your geocentric thread than your immigration thread because, frankly, it's more entertaining.

Policy wonk-itude, even when it really is wonk-itude, generally isn't a page-turner. Ask Al Gore ("An Inconvenient Truth" notwithstanding).

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2006,13:55   

Well, now a rough sketch to my geocentric model has been posted. I know it's a little exotic, but I wanted to throw out an outline to fill in later as I get the time.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2006,20:07   

Test.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,07:28   

Remember guys, all the slander* goes on this thread.





*Stifle yourself, Yenta.  :D

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 25 2006,10:02   

Interesting debate on Auster's blog. I find this quote relevant:
 
Quote
Notice how many people see this huge threat from Chistianity? As Ben said, Christianity is on the defense now, and the Fundamentalists are a small fringe group with no great influence. There is a Proverb (28:1): “The wicked man flees though no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion.” The liberal view, which encompasses all sorts of evil, will never rest comfortably, no matter how victorious. Because even with one man resisting liberalism, that one man with God make a majority (to speak in preaching style). It’s as if liberals have this irrepressible sneaking suspicion and fear that, if that one man is right about God, they are all toast.

If you notice, this explains much about the creo-evo debate.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 25 2006,10:07   

Bill,

With the proviso that I get to see your paper on "guts to gametes", you would be very welcome to host a thread on my* blog.

*It remains of course open to all and unmoderated.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2006,07:17   

Alan Fox:
 
Quote
Bill,

With the proviso that I get to see your paper on "guts to gametes", you would be very welcome to host a thread on my* blog.

Thanks. I might just take you up on that. But I need to take care of the current business first. By the way, I find #9's objection to Dave's characterisation of the Wai-Wai tribe very amusing, since we all know that Cultural Anthropology has been a playground for slack-jawed Marxists from the very beginning, regardless of Nine's competence.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
MDPotter



Posts: 12
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,05:49   

GoP,

you wrote:

Quote
MT 7:1 Judge not, that ye may not be judged;
MT 7:2 for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you.
MT 7:3 But why lookest thou on the mote that is in the eye of thy brother, but observest not the beam that is in thine eye?
MT 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Allow [me], I will cast out the mote from thine eye; and behold, the beam is in thine eye?
MT 7:5 Hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine eye, and then thou wilt see clearly to cast out the mote out of the eye of thy brother.


Are you not judging people in this thread?
Isnt the entire point of your post that we should judge our fellow man and pass laws based on those judgements to keep those that we judge 'undesirable' from mucking up our wonderful western world?
We have judged these people and they need to go! Right?
I know you said you would repeal all race laws but you would need new laws delineating who can stay, who goes, the procedures for achieving said goal, right?

Also, was not JC the ultimate liberal?
Turn thy cheek, meek inherits the earth, etc?

I your mind does Jesus carry a sword or an olive branch?
Or both?  
Would Jesus be more likely to vote democrat or republican?
Would Jesus support big coporations that you seem to feel are unjustly vilified by the liberal media ?
Or would he be more likely to speak out against the big boss in favor of the little guy?
Is that a beam in your eye?

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,05:55   

Crabby on the AFDave Thread:
     
Quote
Deadman, I can understand your rancor at Dave's (barely) covert racism, his "Deadman claims muh Daddy was settin' on the verandah, sippin' mint juleps while darky was totin' dem barge and liftin' dem bales" spiel speaks volumes about his mindset.

Makes you wonder if his Daddy had those Wai Wai sleeping on four slat beds, rising at the crack of dawn, working (and larnin' the "word") 18 hours a day and consuming an 1100 calorie a day diet with no protein till they saw the "light"?

I can just imagine his reaction if one of his kids were to commit an act of miscegenation with one of the "devolved" races.


Crabby, this is disgraceful. AFDave hasn't shown the slightest tinge of bigotry; on the contrary, he spent his childhood playing and interacting with kids from other races. Have you read Dinesh D'Souza's The End of Racism? He shows that racism is a modern secular invention to explain the difference in civilisational achievements among societies. Yes, individuals have used the Bible to justify slavery; but what sets Judeo-Christian society apart is the fact that it ended the practice. Heck, slavery still exists in parts of Africa. Have you read about African chiefs sending delegates to Britain to protest the abolition of this tradition? I'll bet you haven't. Hey Crabby, tell me who said:
     
Quote
"The widespread revulsion which the hideous institution of slavery inspires today was largely confined to Western civilisation a century ago, and a century before that was largely confined to a portion of British society. No one seems interested in the epic story of how this curse that covered the globe and endured for thousands of years was finally gotten rid of by the West - not only in Western societies but in other societies conquered, controlled, or pressured by the West.
The resistance put up by Africans, Asians and Arabs was monumental in defense of slavery, and lasted for more than a century. Only the overwhelming military power of the West enabled it to prevail on this issue, and only the moral outrage of Western peoples kept their government's feet to the fire politically to maintain the pressure against slavery around the world.
Of course, this is not the kind of story that appeals to the multiculturalists. If it had been the other way around - if Asian or African imperialists had stamped out slavery in Europe - it would still be celebrated, in story and song, on campuses across America."


--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2006,12:47   

Thomas Sowell?

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2006,09:44   

Yep, Mr. Elliot, Thomas Sowell.

MDPotter
   
Quote
Are you not judging people in this thread?
Isnt the entire point of your post that we should judge our fellow man and pass laws based on those judgements to keep those that we judge 'undesirable' from mucking up our wonderful western world?
We have judged these people and they need to go! Right?
I know you said you would repeal all race laws but you would need new laws delineating who can stay, who goes, the procedures for achieving said goal, right?

Recall that my buyout program is entirely voluntary; anyone who wants to can stay. And my immigration restrictions are consistent with both common sense and scripture. Jesus was very clear about how to react to recalcitrant cultures, as he advises below:
   
Quote
Now after these things, the Lord also appointed seventy others, and sent them two by two ahead of him into every city and place, where he was about to come.

2 Then he said to them, "The harvest is indeed plentiful, but the laborers are few. Pray therefore to the Lord of the harvest, that he may send out laborers into his harvest.

3 Go your ways. Behold, I send you out as lambs among wolves.

4 Carry no purse, nor wallet, nor sandals. Greet no one on the way.

5 Into whatever house you enter, first say,'Peace be to this house.'

6 If a son of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; but if not, it will return to you.

7 Remain in that same house, eating and drinking the things they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Don't go from house to house.

8 Into whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat the things that are set before you.

9 Heal the sick who are therein, and tell them,'The Kingdom of God has come near to you.'

10 But into whatever city you enter, and they don't receive you, go out into its streets and say,

11 'Even the dust from your city that clings to us, we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the Kingdom of God has come near to you.'

12 I tell you, it will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city.


13 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

14 But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment than for you.

15 You, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades.

16 Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me. Whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."

[my emphasis, of course]


This doesn't mean that we're free to ignore the problems of dysfunctional nations; in fact, I advocate foreign aid and trading relations with countries who want to improve their lot. I also donate money (not nearly enough, I must admit) to international relief agencies. In order for these actions to work, however, we must be as strong and unified as possible. A dollar in America doesn't help as many people as a dollar in Cambodia.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2006,14:41   

Good news! The Study That Dare Not Speak Its Name is finally available for close scrutiny.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2006,15:42   

My goodness, Paley, is there NO topic upon which you are not expert?

One wonders why you waste your immense brilliant talents with all of us uneducated simple-minded losers here on the Internet.  Why aren't you out there stunning the world with your unsurpassed knowledge and expertise, Paley . . . . ?

(snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2006,07:02   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 17 2006,19:41)
Good news! The Study That Dare Not Speak Its Name is finally available for close scrutiny.

New Century Foundation
From SourceWatch
The New Century Foundation, founded November 1990 and based in Oakton, Virginia, is a "self-styled think tank that publishes a monthly journal and a Web site called American Renaissance (http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/amren.asp?xpicked=5&item=amren). Also hosts biannual conferences. The Foundation promotes pseudoscientific and questionably researched and argued studies to validate the superiority of whites."[1] (http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/amren.asp?xpicked=5&item=amren)

The Foundation is headed by Samuel Jared Taylor, "author of Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America, a 1991 book that documented fundamental problems with U.S. policies on civil rights, crime and welfare. ... But Mr. Taylor was criticized as an advocate of 'the new white racism' by conservative author Dinesh D'Souza, whose 1995 book The End of Racism reported many of the same racial problems Mr. Taylor had examined in his earlier book."[2] (http://www.amren.com/crime.htm)

"Presenters at conferences have included Samuel Francis and Gordon Lee Baum of the Council of Conservative Citizens. Attendees have included Don Black, operator of the white supremacist Web site Stormfront (http://www.stormfront.org/), and National Alliance leader Kevin Alfred Strom. Taylor has been a board member of the Council of Conservative Citizens, and is on the advisory board and has contributed to the racist journal Occidental Quarterly."[3] (http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/amren.asp?xpicked=5&item=amren)

http://www.nc-f.org/index.htm

New Century Foundation is a 501©(3) organization founded in 1994 to study immigration and race relations so as to better understand the consequences of America’s increasing diversity.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2006,09:18   

Yep, that Jared sure is a right shady fella -- that's why I mentioned his politics from the very beginning. Trouble is, no one's been able to refute this study, although it leaves out certain things, like the fact that blacks and other minorities don't commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes against whites relative to their population proportion (or opportunity, as Tim Wise has noted). The numbers he does use seem pretty solid and worthwhile, however.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2006,11:02   

Jared Taylor, a Racist in the Guise of 'Expert'

Published on Sunday, January 23, 2005 by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania)

On Martin Luther King Jr. Day last week, when much of the nation took a holiday, "race-relations expert" Jared Taylor was hard at work. He began at 6:45 a.m. with an interview with a Columbus radio station. At 7:05 he was on the air in Orlando. An hour later his voice greeted morning commuters in Huntingdon, W.Va.

At 10:10 a.m., he was introduced no fewer than four times as "race relations expert Jared Taylor" on Fred Honsberger's call-in show on the Pittsburgh Cable News Channel. Four hours later, he was back on the air with Honsberger on KDKA radio, where he repeated the message he'd been thumping all day: Martin Luther King Jr. was a philanderer, a plagiarist and a drinker who left a legacy of division and resentment, and was unworthy of a national holiday.

What Taylor did not say, and what Honsberger didn't seem to know until I picked up the phone and called in myself, was that Jared Taylor believes black people are genetically predisposed to lower IQs that whites, are sexually promiscuous because of hyperactive sex drives. Race-relations expert Jared Taylor keeps company with a collection of racists, racial "separatists" and far-right extremists.

Taylor heads the Virginia-based New Century Foundation. Its board of directors has included a leader of the Council of Conservative Citizens, successor to the White Citizens Councils of the 1960s. A former board member represented the American Friends of the British National Party, a neo-fascist and anti-Semitic far-right group in England. Another board member is an anti-immigration author who has also reviewed books for a Holocaust denial journal.

Race-relations expert Jared Taylor publishes American Renaissance magazine, which features an array of pseudoscientific studies that purport to show the folly of multiculturalism and the inherent failure of the races to live together. Or, as Taylor once wrote, "If whites permit themselves to be displaced, it is not just the high culture of the West that could disappear but such things as representative government, rule of law and freedom of speech, which whites usually get right and everyone else usually gets wrong."

What Taylor represents and how he got himself on no fewer than a half-dozen radio and television stations in large markets to denounce Martin Luther King illustrates the new tactics of white supremacy. Employing the dispassionate language of sociological and genetic studies, and under the veneer of academic inquiry, an assortment of highly educated people now push the theory that everything from unwed motherhood in Atlanta to economic collapse in Gambia can be explained by the genetic code imprinted on the races.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2006,11:08   

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=255

Taylor uses an incredibly simplistic analytical method that flatly ignores the fundamental conclusion of decades of serious criminology: Crime is intimately related to poverty. In fact, when multivariate statistical methods such as regression analysis are used, study after study has shown that race has little, if any, predictive power.

This basic fact is so well understood among scholars of criminal justice that the preface to Minnesota's official crime data reports carries this caveat: "Racial and ethnic data must be treated with caution. ... Existing research on crime has generally shown that racial or ethnic identity is not predictive of criminal behavior with data which has been controlled for social and economic factors."

When more sophisticated methodology is employed, socioeconomic factors including poverty, education, social status and urban residence account far better for criminal behavior than race. Above all, income counts.

It is precisely because being black in America is closely correlated with being poor, suffering from high unemployment and having low levels of education that the black community has relatively high crime rates.

In 1994, the same year that Taylor's data comes from, the poverty rate among blacks was three times that of whites. In addition, nearly 40 percent of black children grew up in poverty.

So while it is true, for instance, that blacks rob whites far more than vice versa, that is hardly a surprise — whites, after all, own nearly 10 times the wealth that blacks do on average. They also own far more businesses. Thus, it is only natural that any rational robber would select whites over blacks as victims.

It would truly have been a "startling conclusion" if the facts had shown that whites attacked blacks more than the other way around. That poor people are more prone to criminality at the expense of the wealthy is utterly unsurprising.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2006,11:13   

And finally:

http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/colorofdeception.html

First, as for the disproportionate rate of violent crime committed by blacks, economic conditions explain the difference with white crime rates. According to several studies, when community and personal economic status is comparable between whites and blacks, there are no significant racial crime differences (1). In other words, the implicit message of Taylor's report -- that blacks are dangerous because they are black -- is insupportable....

Next, Taylor claims that most victims of black violent crime are white, and thus, that blacks are violently targeting whites. Furthermore, since only a small share of the victims of white criminals are black (only 4.4 percent in 2002, for example), this means that blacks are far more of a threat to whites than vice-versa. But there are several problems with these claims.

To begin with, the white victim totals in the Justice Department's victimization data include those termed Hispanic by the Census, since nine in ten Latino/as are considered racially white by government record-keepers. Since Latinos and Latinas tend to live closer to blacks than non-Hispanic whites, this means that many "white" victims of "black crime" are Latino or Latina, and that in any given year, the majority of black crime victims would be people of color, not whites.

But even if we compute the white totals as Taylor does, without breaking out Hispanic victims of "black crime," his position is without merit. In 2002, whites, including Latinos, were about 81.5 percent of the population (3). That same year, whites (including Latinos) were 51 percent of the victims of violent crimes committed by blacks, meaning that whites were victimized by blacks less often than would have been expected by random chance, given the extent to which whites were available to be victimized (4).

As for the claim that blacks victimize whites at rates that are far higher than the reverse, though true, this statistic is meaningless, for a few obvious but overlooked reasons, first among them the simple truth that if whites are more available as potential victims, we would naturally expect black criminals to victimize whites more often than white criminals would victimize blacks. Examining data from 2002, there were indeed 4.5 times more black-on-white violent crimes than the reverse (5). While this may seem to support Taylor's position, it actually destroys it, because the interracial crime gap, though seemingly large, is smaller than random chance would have predicted. The critical factor ignored by Taylor is the extent to which whites and blacks encounter each other in the first place. Because of ongoing racial isolation and de facto segregation, the two group's members do not encounter one another at rates commensurate with their shares of the population: a fact that literally torpedoes the claims in The Color of Crime.

As sociologist Robert O'Brian has noted (using Census data), the odds of a given white person (or white criminal for that matter) encountering a black person are only about three percent. On the other hand, the odds of a given black person (or black criminal) encountering a white person are nineteen times greater, or fifty-seven percent (6), meaning the actual interracial victimization gap between black-on-white and white-on-black crime is smaller than one would expect. In 2002, blacks committed a little more than 1.2 million violent crimes, while whites committed a little more than three million violent crimes (7). If each black criminal had a 57 percent chance of encountering (and thus potentially victimizing) a white person, this means that over the course of 2002, blacks should have been expected to victimize roughly 690,000 whites. But in truth, blacks victimized whites only 614,176 times that year (8). Conversely, if each white criminal had only a three percent chance of encountering and thus victimizing a black person, this means that over the course of 2002, whites would have been expected to victimize roughly 93,000 blacks. But in truth, whites victimized blacks 135,931 times: almost 50 percent more often than would be expected by random chance (9).

Indeed, given relative crime rates as well as rates of interracial encounter, random chance would have predicted the ratio of black-on-white to white-on-black victimization at roughly 7.4 to one. Yet, as the data makes clear, there were only 4.5 times more black-on-white crimes than white-on-black crimes in 2002. In other words, given encounter ratios, black criminals victimize whites less often than could be expected, while white criminals victimize blacks more often than could be expected.

There is plenty more.  Excuse me for saving time by posting someone else's reasoned analysis - it was quicker than writing my own

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2006,11:26   

Now THAT'S a pathetic level of detail.  I think it shall remain unmatched, Midnight Voice; nice job.

but I need a match now that I"m heading off into the wilderness. -dt

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2006,13:33   

From the SPLcenter source Midnight Voice cited:
               
Quote
Around the nation, white supremacists and their fellow travelers are brandishing copies of a 1999 booklet that purports to show that whites have every reason to be terrified of blacks.

Uh-oh, already we're in trouble, as this is a criticism of the earlier study instead of the revised one I actually cited. As we'll discover, the new edition does address some of these complaints.
               
Quote
Taylor uses an incredibly simplistic analytical method that flatly ignores the fundamental conclusion of decades of serious criminology: Crime is intimately related to poverty. In fact, when multivariate statistical methods such as regression analysis are used, study after study has shown that race has little, if any, predictive power.

So why didn't you cite these studies, Mr. Anonymous Author? I would certainly like to see them.
               
Quote
This basic fact is so well understood among scholars of criminal justice that the preface to Minnesota's official crime data reports carries this caveat: "Racial and ethnic data must be treated with caution. ... Existing research on crime has generally shown that racial or ethnic identity is not predictive of criminal behavior with data which has been controlled for social and economic factors."

From the Color of Crime:
               
Quote
Many people believe that a bad social environment
is a major contributor to crime. They believe
that if people of all races had the same education,
income, and social status, there would be no race
differences in crime rates. Academic research, however,
shows that these differences persist even after
controlling for social variables.34
Figures 14 through 17 show correlations for the
50 states and Washington, DC, between rates of vioIn fact, the percentage of the population that is
black and Hispanic accounts for crime rates more
than four times better than the next best measure:
lack of education.36 Furthermore, even controlling
for all three measures of social disadvantage hardly
changes the correlation between racial mix and crime
rates. The correlation between violent crime and the
percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic
is 0.78 even when poverty, education, and
unemployment are controlled, versus 0.81 when they
are not. In layman’s terms, the statistical results suggest
that even if whites were just as disadvantaged
as blacks and Hispanics the association between race
and violent crime would still be almost as great. It
may seem harsh to state it so plainly, but the single
best indicator of an area’s violent crime rate is its
racial/ethnic mix.

             
Quote
When more sophisticated methodology is employed, socioeconomic factors including poverty, education, social status and urban residence account far better for criminal behavior than race. Above all, income counts.

Jared says otherwise. Racist that he is, at least he cites sources. Here's another problem: by tossing out these factors (especially poverty and education), you're assuming they are independent of culture (or biology, as Thrillbilly Taylor would have it). Could be, but I'd sure like to see evidence for that, because common sense doesn't back it up.
             
Quote
In 1994, the same year that Taylor's data comes from, the poverty rate among blacks was three times that of whites. In addition, nearly 40 percent of black children grew up in poverty.

Yes. And you know why? Because studies indicate that poor people of all races have more children per capita than middle class or rich people do. Hint: if you can't raise a baby, don't make a baby. That used to be good advice. Now it'll get you thrown into prison if you cross the Atlantic.
           
Quote
So while it is true, for instance, that blacks rob whites far more than vice versa, that is hardly a surprise — whites, after all, own nearly 10 times the wealth that blacks do on average. They also own far more businesses. Thus, it is only natural that any rational robber would select whites over blacks as victims.

True enough. And for that matter, a rational sadist would choose white people to beat up, because whites tend to be more timid (although MMA is changing things a little). But see below.
           
Quote
What Taylor actually does is consider only a subset of data on crime — statistics on interracial crimes between blacks and whites from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).

For crimes of violence — the crimes Taylor focuses on — that data covers just 16 percent of the crimes committed in 1994. The result is a skewed view of the impact of race on crime that suggests that whites ought to be terrified of blacks who, in Taylor's view, present a serious threat to society.

Missing the Forest for the Trees
But this analysis completely overlooks the larger — and far more scientifically defensible — pattern in the data: Most crime is intra-racial (black-on-black and white-on-white), not interracial.

In fact, the NCVS data show that 73 percent of white violent crime victims were attacked by whites, and 80 percent of black victims were targeted by blacks. This pattern is even clearer in the category of murder.

According to a 1997 government report, 94 percent of black murder victims, as well as 85 percent of white murder victims, were slain by members of their own race. Thus, the larger reality, that danger comes mainly from one's own race, is utterly ignored by Taylor, who for reasons of his own is interested only in interracial crime.

Yes, and this is what I said a few posts ago. Whites are actually disproportionately likely to be victimised by other whites when all violent crimes are factored in. Tim Wise claims that this is true even when you take the level of interracial "encounters" into account, although I haven't checked his sources. The point is, when one does examine interracial crime, one sees that it is whites, not blacks, who tend to be the victims. Perhaps this isn't such a big problem when whites are 70% of the population. But what happens when we become 50% in another generation? A third? Being a well-off minority (or being perceived as one) in a country full of poor, uneducated people who've been raised to think of you as a sinister wimp is a scary proposition. Ask whites in Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Brasil if you don't believe me. Don't procrastinate too much, however, I hear they're becoming an endangered species. ;)
 More to the point, Jared does bring this up in his new study:
         
Quote
This is still not clear evidence blacks are targeting
whites. Not only are there 5.5 times more potential
white victims for black criminals—this is
what is adjusted for by dividing the white bars in
Figure 18 by 5.5—but blacks commit crimes of violence
in general at far greater rates than whites. The
huge multiples found in Figure 18 could therefore
be the combined result of these two things: a larger
number of potential white than black crime victims
and much higher black rates of violent crime regardless
of the race of the victim.
The black bars in Figure 19 must therefore be
divided again, this time by the black/white multiples
for the overall rates for each crime, which are represented
by the gray bars. The results are shown in the
white bars in Figure 19. In the case of aggravated
assault, the result is just over one, which means the
disproportions in black-on-white assault are almost
entirely explained by the fact that there are more
white potential victims and blacks commit this crime
at a higher rate than whites. However, for the other
crimes, the ratio is greater than one—1.66 for robbery
and 7.4 for rape—suggesting that something
else is contributing to much higher rates of blackon-
white than white-on-black crime. The fact that
these interracial crime multiples remain even after
controlling for population differences and overall
racial differences in crime rates suggests either that
blacks do target whites for crime, white criminals
deliberately avoid black victims, or some combination
of the two.

And how does poverty explain the discrepancy in rape rates? Oooh, my wallet's empty, I'll go rape that rich b*tch! Part of it might be caused by disgruntled white girls filing hoaxed-up charges against their black boyfriends (white women are more likely to date black men when they date interracially, while white men prefer asian women), but I'm just speculating. No matter how you slice it, the rape stats are troubling. See figure 19, as this is an attempt to address Wise's "encounter" complaint.

       
Quote
Misinterpreting Hate Crimes
Taylor looks to statistics on hate crime to make the point that blacks are far more likely to attack whites for racial reasons than the other way around — even though, as Taylor himself acknowledges, hate crime statistics are widely known to be seriously flawed because of reporting errors.  

And the fact that the FBI defines the "Victim/Offender" categories to make Whitey look as evil as possible; Hispanics are classified as "White" when they commit a crime, as "Hispanic" when they're victimised. Faid disputed this in the other thread to no effect. The proof is in the pudding.          
 
Quote
First, Taylor excludes hate crimes based on religion, sexual orientation and disability. Then, using the remaining motivation categories of race and ethnicity, he says that 63 percent of these crimes were committed by whites, less than their 72 percent proportion of the population would suggest; and 19 percent were the work of blacks, even though blacks account for only 12 percent of Americans.

Thus, Taylor concludes, blacks are more likely to commit hate crimes while whites are less so.

These numbers are deceptive. If one looks at all hate crimes and all ethnic groups, the data show that whites are responsible for 75 percent of all hate crimes — higher than their proportion in the population — while the black rate remains at 19 percent.

Corrected for population, these numbers mean that blacks are 1.37 times more likely to commit hate crimes than all other races combined — a far cry from the 1.99 rate that Taylor advances. Whites, too, commit more hate crimes than all other races combined, but only slightly more so.

This type of exaggeration is typical of the poor methodology Taylor employs in his analysis.

A very good point. What the author fails to disclose is that prosecutors don't apply hate crime charges even-handedly. I cited many instances in the "liberal bias" thread where the prosecutor ignored the racial angle in minority-on-majority crimes, even when the offenders used racial epithets. Apply the statutes fairly, then we'll talk.
Quote
Taylor also asserts that "millions of ordinary interracial crimes" should really be considered hate crimes — an insupportable conclusion. Hate crimes are not simply crimes committed between persons of different races.

They are crimes that are motivated by the race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or other group characteristic of the victim. A black man's robbery of a store owned by a white businessman is not a hate crime unless the offender, motivated by animus toward whites, chose the store simply because the owner was white.

Which is why blacks rarely get charged with hate crimes; the police assume a burden of proof they don't assume for white thugs. See the "liberal bias" thread for more detail.
Quote
Quite apart from the glaring Constitutional violations involved in such a practice, Taylor is simply wrong about the usefulness of racial profiling. A study of profiling released by the nonpartisan U.S. General Accounting Office earlier this year shows that stopping individuals based on race, gender or state of origin does not increase the likelihood of discovering contraband or illegal activities.

That is because most members of minority communities — just like most young people, most whites, most males and most people overall — are law-abiding citizens.

This fact has been accepted by major law enforcement agencies around the country. The National Association of Police Organizations, for instance, opposes the practice. So does the International Association of Police Chiefs.

Really? This would be news to Democrats like John McWhorter, who admitted that profiling works, and backed it up with studies of his own in Losing the Race.  I believe there was a study of the New York Port Authority bus terminal that showed rather dramatic successes in profiling likely drug smugglers. Almost all the blacks who were collared proved to be guilty, while a majority of whites proved innocent. I'll bring the book tomorrow. I know Dinesh D'Souza also came to the same conclusion (but he's a wingnut, so we can ignore him, correct?).
Quote
His booklet is simply the latest effort of racial ideologues to demonstrate black America's hatred for whites and to encourage whites to "take back the country" as a matter of survival. Although there are many inaccuracies in Taylor's analysis, those already detailed should give a sense of the quality of his research.

As social science, The Color of Crime fails the test.


And this screed fails utterly as a rebuttal. Although, to be fair to the mystery author, most of the criticisms applied much better to the 1999 report. Too bad Midnight Voice can't tell the difference.

What about the Tim Wise essay? This critique does make several good points, and I highlighted them when I cited it two months ago. The one big problem, however, is this:
Quote
Published on ZNet, www.zmag.org, 11/19/04. Note: This rebuttal refers to the original Color of Crime Report by American Renaissance. A newer version of the report was recently released, and as such, a newer rebuttal will be forthcoming shortly, though the analysis herein is still applicable.

In other words, it's not a criticism of the edition I actually cited. This is important, because Taylor does attempt to refute Tim's essay, especially in Figure 19. Did he do a good job? I guess we'll see when Mr. Wise reviews the new study. Until then, I'll look it over and give my opinion. One thing remains clear: there has still been no refutation of the new edition.

Blipey:
Quote
Now THAT'S a pathetic level of detail.  I think it shall remain unmatched, Midnight Voice; nice job.

Just not nice enough.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2006,09:10   

Quote
And the fact that the FBI defines the "Victim/Offender" categories to make Whitey look as evil as possible; Hispanics are classified as "White" when they commit a crime, as "Hispanic" when they're victimised. Faid disputed this in the other thread to no effect. The proof is in the pudding.    


That's a really sleazy thing to say, ghost. Just thought you should know.

Quote
First, you seem to find it absurd that anti-Jewish hate crimes are more than anti-white ones. I didn't understand that, untill I realized what you think.

Ghost: When racial hate crimes are evaluated, say, anti-white, it's not by evaluating hate crimes against persons who are white; it's by evaluating hate crimes against persons for being white.
So, all anti-Jewish hate crimes are not also anti-white; A Jewish person can be the target of an anti-religious bias (for being Jewish), an anti-white bias (for being white) or even both, perhaps (cases of multiple bias). The incident ends at the proper category everytime.
And it's the same with Hispanics and ethnicity (instead of religion). Like Jewish victims are singled out only when evaluating religion (not race), so Hispanic victims are singled out only when evaluating ethnicity (not race).


You never answered that, and now you say I tried to refute your claims to no avail. Reeeeeal nice.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2006,09:34   

Quote
Total and utter BS. Read my last post, Ghost.

I did, and was unimpressed. You just said, "Well, Hispanics get lumped in with Whites as 'victims' when they're attacked for being white!"
   
Quote
Ghost: When racial hate crimes are evaluated, say, anti-white, it's not by evaluating hate crimes against persons who are white; it's by evaluating hate crimes against persons for being white.
So, all anti-Jewish hate crimes are not also anti-white; A Jewish person can be the target of an anti-religious bias (for being Jewish), an anti-white bias (for being white) or even both, perhaps (cases of multiple bias). The incident ends at the proper category everytime.
And it's the same with Hispanics and ethnicity (instead of religion). Like Jewish victims are singled out only when evaluating religion (not race), so Hispanic victims are singled out only when evaluating ethnicity (not race).


This is:

1) Irrelevant. The point remains that the FBI always treats Hispanics as white when they commit a hate crime, and only occasionally as white when they're the victims.

2) Unsupported. How do you how often this happens, or even if it happens at all? I suspect that they're classified as "Hispanic" regardless of the circumstances. In any case, you provided no proof. I was the one who went through the tables, chart-by-chart, not you.

3) Implausible. Most Hispanics are recognisable as a distinct ethnic group; I doubt that thugs confuse them with "whitebreads" too often.

Try again.

[edit: speaking of sleaze, our friend doesn't mind engaging in a little of it himself. The reason why I never responded was because I explicitly promised that I would give him the last word. Notice that he doesn't link to the thread itself. Hmmmmmm.....hiding something, are ya?]

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2006,10:02   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 19 2006,14:34)

Quote
1) Irrelevant. The point remains that the FBI always treats Hispanics as white when they commit a hate crime, and only occasionally as white when they're the victims.

If by "Occasionally" you mean "When their RACE is the target". "Which is what they do with ALL races. Doing otherwise would be a distinction. You are smart enough to understand that- I hope.

Quote
2) Unsupported. How do you how often this happens, or even if it happens at all? I suspect that they're classified as "Hispanic" regardless of the circumstances. In any case, you provided no proof. I was the one who went through the tables, chart-by-chart, not you.

And, as usual, the charts supported MY claims, Ghost. Why do YOU think Anti-Jewish crimes are more than Anti-White ones? The way they categorize the crimes is the one I said, and your "suspicions" amount to nothing.
Quote
3) Implausible. Most Hispanics are recognisable as a distinct ethnic group; I doubt that thugs confuse them with "whitebreads" too often.

I suppose that, in your world, Hispanics have a large sign over their heads that says "LATINO" along with whatever derogatory term you use there... Or maybe they are all like "My name, Enrico Himenez..." all the time. Is that it, Ghost?

Good job.

And speaking of sleaziness: The fact that you decided not to answer does not mean you did, and certainly does not give you the right to argue that you have refuted my claims.... It was YOU, not ME who brought the issue up again. Sorry Ghost, your sleaziness factor remains. But good try.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2006,11:40   

Quote
If by "Occasionally" you mean "When their RACE is the target". "Which is what they do with ALL races. Doing otherwise would be a distinction. You are smart enough to understand that- I hope.

Weeeeeee! Faid sails right by the point without pause. Let's try again.

In America, when people think about "evil white people", they do not mean mestizos. They mean Caucasians of "pure" European descent. When the FBI releases Hate Crime statistics that show "whites" commiting such-and-such number of crimes, the average American assumes they're talking about people like myself. This is because most American Hispanics are of mixed race (Amerindian/white, Amerindian/black, or some combination thereof). Mestizos are considered a minority group in America. That's why Number Nine gets pi$$y at Dave's childhood stories; he sees Dave as belonging to a race of colonisers and exploiters, not as a fellow white man.
  The FBI knows this, of course. They also know that many "hate crimes" are actually the result of ethnic tensions that have little to do with Whitey (gang initiations, etc.). So what do they do? Instead of making categories consistent for both offenders and victims, they equivocate: mestizo bigots get lumped with white people even if their bigotry has nothing to do with white culture, while mestizo victims get their own special category in order to highlight their victimisation status at the hands of "whites". Not only is this bad bookkeeping (wouldn't it serve the American public to learn about the criminals as well as the victims?), it's bad morals. It implies that European whites commit all the hate crimes in "their" category, when in fact the offenders are often of a different race and culture. (In fact, I'll bet that blacks, and not whites, commit most of the hate crimes against "Hispanics". I know that SWAT teams have to be called in from time to time to quash black-Hispanic rioting in California schools. Eric knows about it, but the rest of the country is kept in the dark by the MSM. SSSSHHHHHHH.).
         
Quote
And, as usual, the charts supported MY claims, Ghost. Why do YOU think Anti-Jewish crimes are more than Anti-White ones? The way they categorize the crimes is the one I said, and your "suspicions" amount to nothing.

No Faid, that was my argument to you. I was showing that the categories were mutually exclusive, and since subgroups of white victims outnumber the total number of white victims, this indicates that the police departments are not eagerly lumping ethnic whites in with other whites. The small numbers of people in the "multiple offenses" category also indicates that Hispanics are rarely put in the "white" category.
         
Quote
I suppose that, in your world, Hispanics have a large sign over their heads that says "LATINO" along with whatever derogatory term you use there... Or maybe they are all like "My name, Enrico Himenez..." all the time. Is that it, Ghost?

Good job.

Ummmm Faid, most Latinos/Latinas are not particularly hard to distinguish from other whites. There are some exceptions, of course......

.....but even here it's not too hard. Remember, most white Americans are not of Mediterranean descent. Greece is not the world, and most white people have light skin. For example, even though I have some Amerindian blood, my skin is as pale as an Irishman's! (Although people tell me I look Jewish, and one close relative got teased for his dark skin. It gets confusing sometimes.)
 
Quote
And speaking of sleaziness: The fact that you decided not to answer does not mean you did, and certainly does not give you the right to argue that you have refuted my claims.... It was YOU, not ME who brought the issue up again. Sorry Ghost, your sleaziness factor remains. But good try.

Faid, you lyin' sack o' ....... :D  :D  :D  :D

Faid, I told you beforehand that I would let you have the last post. Beforehand.

:D  :D  :D  :D

Hey Dave, I'm breaking one of the Enemy down for ya!

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2006,12:56   

What? WHAT?

I read your post three times, ghost. First, you imply that Hispanics (which you start to call "mestizos" all of a sudden, to make your point) Should be a different RACE, not a national minority. Well why didn't you say so in the first place? Well, when you guys take over America and redefine the concept of race, make sure you take it to the FBI. But until then, try to provide an actual argument if you have one. Hispanics are a national minority, and that's how FBI caregorizes them (because the FBI cares about whites, not "evil white people"- Anglo-Saxons, as I suppose you mean), and they don't get their "special little category" any more than Jewish or homosexuals do when religious and sexuality- bias crimes are comitted: They just go where they belong.  And there's nothing you can do about it. It has to do with that concept you often find in the way of your views: Reality.

Then it gets better:
   
Quote
No Faid, that was my argument to you. I was showing that the categories were mutually exclusive, and since subgroups of white victims outnumber the total number of white victims, this indicates that the police departments are not eagerly lumping ethnic whites in with other whites. The small numbers of people in the "multiple offenses" category also indicates that Hispanics are rarely put in the "white" category.

Now who's missing the point? Ghost, the categories are not mutually exclusive. Why should they be? And how does your assertion derive from the fact that subgoups are greater than what you consider the "total" (which is not the total at all)?

Ghost, that was not the "total number of white victims". It was the total number of anti-white crimes. There is a big difference.

You still haven't figured it out, have you?

Here comes the clue train once again: An anti-White (or anti-Jewish) bias is NOT determined by who the crime was commited against: it's determined by why it was commited. And that is the only way possible.
Say that I'm a black supremacist or whatever sick notion you can think of, and I hate whites. I see a white person walking down the street and I beat him up, without knowing anything else other that he was white.
Now, that person also happened to be Jewish- I had no idea about it, though.
Was my crime an anti-white one, an anti-jewish one, or both? And how will FBI tell?


...Starting to get it eventually? I hope so...

   
Quote
Ummmm Faid, most Latinos/Latinas are not particularly hard to distinguish from other whites. There are some exceptions, of course......


Hmm... And why is that? Physical characteristics, enough to tell them apart on the street? Such as? Or is my previous thought about how you view them correct? Unless of course, you weren't joking, and by "Whites" you really mean fair-skinned blue-eyed blondes, in which case I fold. (I'm not Fundamerican, Paley, I know my country is not the world, and yet I also know that I am as white -in race- and Greek -in ethnicity- as my lady friend who is dark-haired and gets a tan the first day at the beach... something you seem to have trouble grasping).

And finally:
   
Quote
Faid, you lyin' sack o' .......        

Faid, I told you beforehand that I would let you have the last post. Beforehand.

     

Hey Dave, I'm breaking one of the Enemy down for ya!


Excuuuse me? Ground control to Air Farce Ghost, can you hear me? What the he1l does that have to do with anything? Since when saying that you are not going to answer to someone else's response gives you the right to act like you have refuted all his claims afterwards, and start boasting about it on other threads when that one is dead and buried?  When people (honest people) withdraw from defending a subject, they don't bring it back later to claim they've won. Did you see me ever bring that debate up, although I DID have the last word, by consensus or not? And you accuse ME of lying? Where did I lie? I never said you didn't say so "beforehand"... I just said you DID NOT answer, and therefore you have no right to act as if you did. Are you trying to -what? Twist my words into lies? How can you even type with all that sleaze?

Keep trying to break me down, AFGhost my lil' champ... because you're more of a weakly interacting massive particle so far.  :D

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2006,08:37   

Quote
I read your post three times, ghost. First, you imply that Hispanics (which you start to call "mestizos" all of a sudden, to make your point) Should be a different RACE, not a national minority. Well why didn't you say so in the first place?

Because I shouldn't have to say such stupid and obvious things. Everyone except you knows that the majority of American Hispanics are obviously of mixed racial descent. Where do you think La Raza gets its name from, Faid? Is this a statement of White Pride, Faid? Should the Southern Poverty Law Center be concerned with this neoNazi organisation?
         
Quote
Well, when you guys take over America and redefine the concept of race, make sure you take it to the FBI. But until then, try to provide an actual argument if you have one. Hispanics are a national minority, and that's how FBI caregorizes them (because the FBI cares about whites, not "evil white people"- Anglo-Saxons, as I suppose you mean), and they don't get their "special little category" any more than Jewish or homosexuals do when religious and sexuality- bias crimes are comitted: They just go where they belong.

I don't have to "redefine" racial categories, Faid, especially since I'm not the one disputing them. And even the government takes care to distinguish between "Non-Hispanic Whites" and "Hispanics". Why don't they make these distinctions between, say, Greeks and other whites if there's no substantial difference? Could it be because Hispanics are a mixed race, and don't fit neatly into a racial category?
         
Quote
Now who's missing the point? Ghost, the categories are not mutually exclusive. Why should they be? And how does your assertion derive from the fact that subgoups are greater than what you consider the "total" (which is not the total at all)?

You forgot my argument, Faid. I was showing that the fed's "victim" and "offender" subcategories were treated by the FBI as mutually exclusive, and that they did not collapse the "Hispanic" category into the "White" category. The totals prove they don't. I wasn't arguing that the categories were logically distinct, despite what your feverish liberal brain might have told you.
         
Quote
Here comes the clue train once again: An anti-White (or anti-Jewish) bias is NOT determined by who the crime was commited against: it's determined by why it was commited. And that is the only way possible.
Say that I'm a black supremacist or whatever sick notion you can think of, and I hate whites. I see a white person walking down the street and I beat him up, without knowing anything else other that he was white.
Now, that person also happened to be Jewish- I had no idea about it, though.
Was my crime an anti-white one, an anti-jewish one, or both? And how will FBI tell?

Yes, Faid, I've been aware of this from the very beginning. Certainly, a bigot might target a Jewish person for his race rather than his religion, with the police sergeant checking the correct box at the station. But you never showed that appreciable numbers of bigots assaulted Hispanics because they viewed them as white. This evidence is crucial, because the claim itself is silly: it assumes that bigots view Latinos as "white", which will come as a surprise to the likes of Jared Taylor and Louis Farrakhan, the latter who seems to view Hispanics as fellow victims of the Blue-Eyed Devil. Once again, Faid, most Hispanics are readily distinguishable from light-skinned whites. As for the occasional bigot who mistakes a Latino for a non-Hispanic white, does this really change the nature of the crime? If I set out to kill a Jewish person and accidentally kill an Italian instead, would I be any less the anti-Semite?
     
Quote
Hmm... And why is that? Physical characteristics, enough to tell them apart on the street? Such as? Or is my previous thought about how you view them correct? Unless of course, you weren't joking, and by "Whites" you really mean fair-skinned blue-eyed blondes, in which case I fold. (I'm not Fundamerican, Paley, I know my country is not the world, and yet I also know that I am as white -in race- and Greek -in ethnicity- as my lady friend who is dark-haired and gets a tan the first day at the beach... something you seem to have trouble grasping).

Hells Bells, Faid, it's bad enough I had to listen to 90 minutes of this crap when my girlfriend dragged me to "My Big Fat Grssk Wedding". Peddle your racial identity issues to someone who gets paid for it. I'm just an American mutt, Faid, what would you have me do? Maybe you guys should have thought this through before shagging Turkish babes.  :D  :D  :D
   
Quote
Excuuuse me? Ground control to Air Farce Ghost, can you hear me? What the he1l does that have to do with anything? Since when saying that you are not going to answer to someone else's response gives you the right to act like you have refuted all his claims afterwards, and start boasting about it on other threads when that one is dead and buried?

I only brought it up because I knew you still disputed this claim, and I wanted newcomers to be aware of our little debate. I thought, and still think, that you haven't defended your point very well. You have supplied no evidence for your position; you simply assert it. Come back when you have evidence.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2006,10:07   

original claim :  
Quote
Western Civilisation is in deep trouble. In addition to an aging population, we are experiencing historically low reproduction rates - below replacement level, in fact. What to do? Most governments turn to immigration for an answer. The immigrants, they reason, provide the cheap labor that allows for economic expansion, while their consumption fuels the growth of service-sector industries. The enriched tax base allows us to maintain the social services and trust funds that cushion retirement accounts. And this does not even account for the cultural enrichment the newcomers also provide. There's only problem - the economy doesn't exist in a vacuum. Whatever affects the economy affects the wider society, especially when the agents of change add their own culture to the mix. Now, if that culture is sound and flexible, no real damage is done. But if they bring a diseased culture along with their possessions, everyone suffers. The immigrants don't assimilate, enrich, or even work - and thus new problems join the old.


His claim of " the immigrants don't assimilate, enrich, or even work - and thus new problems join the old" has been supported by what?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2006,10:47   

Quote (deadman_932 @ July 20 2006,15:07)
His claim of " the immigrants don't assimilate, enrich, or even work - and thus new problems join the old" has been supported by what?

Well, all the members of the current administration were originally immigrants.  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2006,11:17   

Quote (MidnightVoice @ July 20 2006,15:47)
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 20 2006,15:07)
His claim of " the immigrants don't assimilate, enrich, or even work - and thus new problems join the old" has been supported by what?

Well, all the members of the current administration were originally immigrants.  :D

It doesn't need 'supporting' -- immigrants just piss Paley off, and that's enough. The fact that liberals disagree with him just confirms he's right.

And let's be honest, the fact that none of us have never seen an immigrant -- especially not a Mexican immigrant -- working in a low-paid, low-prestige shitty job with no benefits and long hours certainly proves to ME that Paley must be right! They just come here to goof off!

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2006,12:04   

That groan you just heard, Number Nine, was the collective dismay of Panda's Thumbers at the softball you just tossed me. "Nine, don't you realise that we've been trying to get this wingnut off his soapbox and address his &^%$ models?!!!! You're mucking our plans up!"

Well, let me just say that it's a very complicated issue. My political views are spread all over Panda's Bum, and this thread was just one attempt to crystallise them. Here's my very brief summary:

N.E. Asians, Indians, and Jewish immigrants: The benefits clearly outweigh the liabilities. These groups assimilate rapidly, don't cause social problems out of proportion to their numbers (in fact, as a group they're probably better behaved than whites), and most importantly, contribute quite a bit to science, art, and technology. Model immigrants.

Immigrants from most African/Caribbean nations: Here, alas, the evidence is equally clear. They don't thrive in Western nations. Some of it's clearly not their fault, but different remedies have failed in different Western countries. Yes, the immigrants make contributions in several areas, but these areas don't outweigh their relatively high crime rates or use of social services. Worse yet, their economic failures lead to heavy-handed government programs that crush the liberties of everyone else. Look at most of Europe: you can be fined or even sent to prison for saying many things that would have been tolerated earlier. Even in the US, the average resident must navigate a complex zone of affirmative action law, corporate speech codes, frivolous lawsuits, and easily bruised feelings just to get through the day's work.

            Sometimes this dance is literal; I remember being warned not to come in physical contact with a certain employee lest I be sued for assault. You would see people literally shying away from her as she walked around, knowing that the merest brush would send her to the floor, screaming about being "shoved" (Portugal would have put her to good use on the football field!;)). This type of thing is not extraordinary; I just pointed it out to illustrate what no one discusses. You guys really should read Losing the Race; the experiences McWhorter relates have been backed up by many teachers I know. I remember one math teacher in a black high school showing me her high school students's AP Calculus exams: guys, that test was a piece of cake. The typical question was along the lines of, "Take the derivative of Sin[x]". Not the definition, mind you, the short-cut rule. What's worse, the students couldn't answer most of these questions; entire sections of the test were left blank or filled in with question marks. When I asked her if she was going to fail them all, she looked at me like I was crazy and said that the High School had been trying to support the program and she would be fired unless she allowed them to retake the test. She said, "I'll probably just curve it". Other teachers tell me that they engage in routine grade fixing so that they don't fail too many "minority students". Some of these teachers are black.

I know that this is anecdotal. People dismissed McWhorter's book on the same grounds. But let me tell you, if my experiences are typical, the dude ain't lying. And remember, this guy teaches at Berkeley, so it's not like the standards aren't there.

Immigrants from South and Central America:
Not sure. A lot of cultural potential, and many of these immigrants work ridiculously hard, but their economic impact is smaller than most people realise, and there are crime/cultural problems here as well. I could go either way on this. I would like to see more evidence of assimilation here.

Wow, am I rambling. I guess there's still some vestigial liberalism that I haven't stamped out. Anyhoo, that's my take. If you want, start a debate thread. For know, I'm going to work on the commitments I've been ducking. I've got geocentrism and philosophy to work on currently. But once again, if you must debate this issue, I'm game. I'd rather keep my prior commitments though.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2006,14:04   

Oooh, you gyuys must be keeking yurrsyelves. "Vy dyidn't I just valk away vhen I had de chance?"

Poor little libs, you bring your best hitters and I keep planting them on their a$$. You try psy-wars to no avail. How about this new strategy that we conservatives like to call "rational discourse"? It seems to work for us. Ya'll oughta give it a whirl, girly-girls.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2006,14:16   

speaking of best hitters --what happened to you on physics, history, epistemology, politics, biology and anthro? Ah, yes...you ran

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2006,14:24   

Number Nine, feel free to comment on my philosophy installments. You seem pretty knowlegeable about the discipline. Or the science thread.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2006,14:28   

Quote
Number Nine, feel free to comment on my philosophy installments. You seem pretty knowlegeable about the discipline. Or the science thread.

What I care about is your ability to back your claims honestly and with supporting evidence, GoP. Both of which you seem unable to do

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2006,14:37   

Well, I've kicked off my discussion of German Philosophers. Of course, I'll have to break it up a little. And I've hinted about the future course of my scientific model.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2006,15:36   

Quote
Oooh, you gyuys must be keeking yurrsyelves. "Vy dyidn't I just valk away vhen I had de chance?"

Poor little libs, you bring your best hitters and I keep planting them on their a$$. You try psy-wars to no avail. How about this new strategy that we conservatives like to call "rational discourse"? It seems to work for us. Ya'll oughta give it a whirl, girly-girls.


spoken just like a tried and true crank.

you should be proud.

all you need do now is set up your own blog, so we can get it registered with crank.net.

btw, your "liberal" umbrella includes 90% of most who would consider themselves "conservative".

you against the world, eh?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2006,20:33   

I now adopt the technique (thanks, Lennie, for suggesting it WRT another bombastic and content-free poster), on AFDave's thread and anywhere Paley is posting, of scrolling past Dave's and Paley's comments, and just reading the replies. I save time and learn good stuff about geology, linguistics etc.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2006,23:37   

Awwww come on Ghosty, why don't you just say "I hate niggers!" and be done with it?

You know you're a racist scumbag trying to thinly disguise his bigotry with hastily googled misquotes and fallacious drivel. We know you're a racist scumbag trying to thinly disguise his bigotry with hastily googled misquotes and fallacious drivel.

Why beat about the Bush? (pun intended)

Why not just stick on your white sheet and hood and chant about how Jesus was white and will lead the Aryan race to dominance? Come on Ghosty, just be honest.

Let's face it, you're either a Loki trolling attention whore playing silly buggers on this board, or you're simply the most deluded mental patient material creationist facist scumbag I have ever encountered.

Shit or get off the pot Paley, stop pissing about with your wild ass social theories and mindbuggeringly stupid attempts at rational discourse and support your geocentric model. Stop trying to distract from the fact that you cannot adequaltely support one of your asinine claims by wandering into ambiguous philosophical and sociological territory. Get on with your geocentrism, you did PROMISE after all!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2006,23:53   

Quote
Get on with your geocentrism, you did PROMISE after all!
The real issue is, as with your inability to proffer that long-awaited  geocentric model, is that you can't back a fucking thing you say, GoP. Why is that not odd to you?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2006,23:58   

Gawp doesn't consider himself to be racist, because he has black friends, you see.

also, he wouldn't join the Klan because he thinks the Jews to be productive members of society, and the Klan HATE jews, remember?

http://cjwww.csustan.edu/hatecrimes/00/kkk/KKK%20web%20page

However, it would be good for gawp to detail exactly how his ideology differs point by point with the following relevant Klan objectives (the rest seemed irrelevant):

Quote
1.  The KKK supports the idea of the extinction of blacks, Catholics, and Jews.
1(b).  The KKK felt themselves to be the purest of races.
2.  The Klan believes the only way races can develop their full potential and culture is through racial seperation.
10.  The Klan feels that Democratic and Republican parties promote treasonous policies


so gawp, based on your own pontifications, which of these points do you honestly agree with?

I think we can throw point one right out; i don't recall you ever calling for genocide.  point 1b?  you do seem to equivocate about race superiority from time to time.

and points two and three?

fair game from what I've seen you post over the last year.

sure you're not a racist?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2006,00:04   

OK, let's take this from the top...
   
Quote
Because I shouldn't have to say such stupid and obvious things. Everyone except you knows that the majority of American Hispanics are obviously of mixed racial descent.

Oh really? Stupid and obvious? You sound like AFDave more and more, ghost! how does "mixed racial descent" imply a distinct race? Like I said, maybe in your world. In reality, the different races in the US do not include Hispanics: Hispanics are a cultural/ethnical minority (and that's also what "La Raza" -which, btw, if you believe Wikipedia, comes from "La Raza Cosmica" :) - would say to you).And more than 90% of them are categorized as white. Not being 'purebloods' (although that's far less than the "majority") might mean something to you, but not to Federal agencies. They don't care about what you (or I) think, Ghost: They just try to create some statistics that are as objective (and useful) as possible.
   
Quote
I don't have to "redefine" racial categories, Faid, especially since I'm not the one disputing them.

And who is? Me? You want Hispanics to be treated as a race instead of a national minority, Ghost.
   
Quote
And even the government takes care to distinguish between "Non-Hispanic Whites" and "Hispanics". Why don't they make these distinctions between, say, Greeks and other whites if there's no substantial difference? Could it be because Hispanics are a mixed race, and don't fit neatly into a racial category?
...Or, maybe, that they are not a race at all, but a cultural and social minority? Precicely because there are more races than one among them? As for your argument, let me help you turn it the right way up: If the goverment creates a distinction between Hispanics and Non-Hispanic Whites, what does that tell you about Hispanics and their dominant race? Otherwise, why not simply refer to them as Whites and Hispanics, if they are so racially diferrent?
   
Quote
You forgot my argument, Faid. I was showing that the fed's "victim" and "offender" subcategories were treated by the FBI as mutually exclusive, and that they did not collapse the "Hispanic" category into the "White" category. The totals prove they don't. I wasn't arguing that the categories were logically distinct, despite what your feverish liberal brain might have told you.

Gah! Not again! Pleeeease Ghost, can you pay a little attention?
Those totals do not "overlap" (except where cases of multiple bias are examined) because they are NOT totals of characteristics of victims; they are totals of victims depending on how they were victimised upon. Basically, they are totals of crimes, attributed to the number of victims (and of offences, on the other table). The victims are not differentiated by their characteristics. They are differentiated by the definition of the crime they were subject to. That is why anti-jewish crimes are more than anti-white ones: The anti-white crimes do not represent all the hate crimes against whites- they represent all the crimes against people because they were white. And that's not the same number, of course. In that regard, Hispanics dont get their "own little category": They are treated (for ethnic-bias crimes) just as Jews are (for religious-bias crimes) or even homosexuals (for homosexual-bias). Is that so hard to grasp?

But..... Now waitaminute:
   
Quote
Yes, Faid, I've been aware of this from the very beginning. Certainly, a bigot might target a Jewish person for his race rather than his religion, with the police sergeant checking the correct box at the station.


Butbutbut you just said... right now, one quote up...  if you knew then what the heck...

oh what the.... It's my fault for taking you seriously again.
If you knew that from the start, Ghost, then I wonder who wrote this:
   
Quote
See how they have each category subdivided? If we assume that these categories overlap, then that means that there were more Jewish victims than "White" victims overall, which would be a logical absurdity. In addition, see the footnote under "Multiple Bias Incidents"

A logical absurdity, eh, well I guess that guy had no idea what he was talking about.
or this guy:
   
Quote
Same problems: 1) there are more Jewish victims than White victims, 2) the footnote implies once again that the categories are mutually exclusive, and 3) the category sums match the total number of victims, which is inconsistent with any overlap. So either these charts are the worst of all time (a reasonable hypothesis, given the source), or the victim categories are, indeed, mutually exclusive. Which means that Hispanic victims are not lumped in with White victims. Which makes the FBI statistics hoax-alicious.

Whoa, if only you were there to teach that guy a thing or two... also that guy that posted that quote above I just addressed... But wait that was you. It was all you. Is your name legion, Ghost?

Come on, admit it... You just figured it out, as you typed the response, now didn't you?  :D

And since you finally conceded to what I was saying all along, you try to take this elsewhere:
   
Quote
But you never showed that appreciable numbers of bigots assaulted Hispanics because they viewed them as white. This evidence is crucial, because the claim itself is silly
(bolds mine)

"Appreciable numbers"? Watch your back with those goalposts, Ghost. Why should I show something I have not claimed? In case you forgot, our dispute was this: You claimed that the FBI (as part of that great 'Conspiracy';) made a dishonest distinction by "lumping up" Hispanics with whites as offenders, and treating them separately as victims. I explained that your sources were BSing you, and that it was a valid distinction because only the race of the offenders was evaluated- while Hispanics get their category as a victim because of ethnic bias crimes against them. And race had nothing to do with that, since as offenders they'd be for the most part (90%, I guess) with whites. I said nothing about percentages: I said that's how it should be. Now you may think that should not be so: And, like I said, when you guys take over you can 'make' Hispanics a distinct race- or, even better, you can start collecting the nationality of all offenders as well  (and I can only imagine the effect that would have on the "liberal media" :) )... But you cannot claim that the FBI forged or cooked any data up to serve its "agenda", because it is simply not true.
   
Quote
Once again, Faid, most Hispanics are readily distinguishable from light-skinned whites. As for the occasional bigot who mistakes a Latino for a non-Hispanic white, does this really change the nature of the crime? If I set out to kill a Jewish person and accidentally kill an Italian instead, would I be any less the anti-Semite?

Um, what does that have to do with anything? And anyway, what's with the "mistakes"? Is the idea of, say, a black who hates hispanic as well as non-hispanic whites alike so alien to you? Or is it that blacks and latinos are bloodbrothers in the fight against their common enemy the lilly-arse Anglo? Well you may think so, but the FBI has to deal with the real world, not your concpiracy theories.
   
Quote
Hells Bells, Faid, it's bad enough I had to listen to 90 minutes of this crap when my girlfriend dragged me to "My Big Fat Grssk Wedding". Peddle your racial identity issues to someone who gets paid for it. I'm just an American mutt, Faid, what would you have me do? Maybe you guys should have thought this through before shagging Turkish babes.  :D  :D  :D

Whoa steady there, Siegfried... Don't get all excited. If I knew that the mental image I provided for you (of a beautiful young lady who has a dark complexion and is also Caucasian) would be so revolting to your poor Aryan mind, I'd have held my tongue. I readily apologise, and promise I'll keep the unspeakable horrors of reality to myself from now on.
(BTW, what race do you think the Turks are, Ghost?  :D  )

   
Quote
I only brought it up because I knew you still disputed this claim, and I wanted newcomers to be aware of our little debate. I thought, and still think, that you haven't defended your point very well. You have supplied no evidence for your position; you simply assert it. Come back when you have evidence


Ghost, ghost, ghost... If that is what you wanted, then you would have simply posted a link to the site (much like how you accused me of not doing- hah!;) But, as you know, I already responded to that:
   
Quote
When people (honest people) withdraw from defending a subject, they don't bring it back later to claim they've won. Did you see me ever bring that debate up, although I DID have the last word, by consensus or not? And you accuse ME of lying? Where did I lie? I never said you didn't say so "beforehand"... I just said you DID NOT answer, and therefore you have no right to act as if you did.

No, what you wanted was to make "newcomers" think that you had triumphed on some old debate, a debate you had in fact backed away from, willingly. that doesn't prove you wrong, but it doesn't make you right either. But the "newcomers" wouldn't know that.... Typical of Paley.
Well, I don't think I need any more "evidence" now that you finally figured the whole thing out, ghost my friend.... But tell you what: You come back when you grow a pair and admit that what you did was crappy. And of course, apologize for accusing me of lying.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2006,00:32   

*sidebar*

um, what the he11 are "light-skinned whites"?

Is this to distinguish from those of mediterranean heritage?

does it mean "european whites"?

no, that would exclude caucasians of spanish descent.

where does gawp think he fits into his own socio-policital-geographical whiteness?

oh that's right, he's unique.  the umbrella is for everybody else

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2006,08:21   

Hitting the Retsina again I see.....
                                         
Quote
Oh really? Stupid and obvious? You sound like AFDave more and more, ghost! how does "mixed racial descent" imply a distinct race? Like I said, maybe in your world. In reality, the different races in the US do not include Hispanics: Hispanics are a cultural/ethnical minority

No #$%$, Sherlock. But the reason they are considered a "cultural/ethnic minority" is because of their interracial mixture. By the way, the Census considers "American Indian", "Alaska Native", "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander" as distinct racial categories, so the Census, by its own logic, would be forced to consider Mestizos as mixed, nu? It doesn't, but that's probably because making fine racial distinctions isn't a priority of the USCB.
                                     
Quote
(and that's also what "La Raza" -which, btw, if you believe Wikipedia, comes from "La Raza Cosmica"  - would say to you).And more than 90% of them are categorized as white. Not being 'purebloods' (although that's far less than the "majority") might mean something to you, but not to Federal agencies. They don't care about what you (or I) think, Ghost: They just try to create some statistics that are as objective (and useful) as possible.

Yes. And they're refining their methodology all the time. Let's suppose, however, that in tabulating poverty in America, the Feds classified blue-collar/unemployed Mulattoes as "white" and white-collar Mulattoes as "mixed race/other", and tried to justify this by saying, "Uhhhh, well, we found it easier to make these racial breakdowns as we went up the social ladder, and hey, we do this across all racial categories, so we're being consistent!" How long do you think civil rights groups would buy this explanation?
     Well, that's what the Feds are doing here. They classify Mestizos as "white" when they commit crime, and then give them a special category when they're victimised. I've got an easier solution: how about giving them their own category as victims and criminals? That would be more symmetric, it would give the American public a better idea of what's going on, and it would make more sense in a report that's about race. They could label the categories as, I don't know, "Hispanic", and "non-Hispanic white". Would this bold new government classification scheme work, Faid? Here's why they won't, though: because then Americans would discover that many "white" hatecrimes ain't as "white" as they're cracked up to be.

 As for this "La Raza Cosmica" book, let's look at a couple of passages:

                           
Quote
Es tésis central del presente libro que las distintas razas del mundo tienden a mezclarse cada vez más, hasta formar un nuevo tipo humano, compuesto con la selección de cada uno de los pueblos existentes. Se publicó por primera vez tal presagio en la época en que prevalecía, en el mundo científico, la doctrina darwinista de la selección natural que salva a los aptos, condena a los débiles; doctrina que llevada al terreno social por Gobineau, dio origen a la teoría del ario puro, defendida por los ingleses, llevada a imposición aberrante por el nazismo.
[....]
Las circumstancias actuales favorecen, en consequencia, el desarrollo de las relaciones sexuales interraciales, lo que presta apoyo inesperado a la tesis que, a falta de nombre mejor, titulé: de la Raza Cósmica futura.
[....]
En todo caso, la conclusión más optimista que se puede derivar de los hechos observados es que aun los mestizajes más contradictorios pueden resolverse benéficamente siempre que el factor espiritual contribuya a levantarlos. En efecto, la decadencia de los pueblos asiáticos es atributible a su aislamiento, pero también, y sin duda, en primer término, al hecho de que no han sido cristianizados. Una religión como la cristiana hizo avanzar a los indios americanos, en pocas centurias, desde el canibalismo hasta la relativa civilización.

Would any Spanish-speaking Panda's Bummer care to translate for the audience?
                         
Quote
And who is? Me? You want Hispanics to be treated as a race instead of a national minority, Ghost.

No, but a little consistency wouldn't hurt: if the government creates the "Hispanic/NonHispanic White" category, then it should use it consistently, especially where dropping the distinction would cause confusion. I honestly don't give a toss how the guv classifies people, but I don't like equivocation, especially when the result (if not the intention  ;) ) leads to demonising races. Since I've been personally targeted for racial violence myself (it didn't lead anywhere when the perps saw that this was actually a

), you might see why I'm a little sensitive on this issue.

                 
Quote
...Or, maybe, that they are not a race at all, but a cultural and social minority? Precicely because there are more races than one among them? As for your argument, let me help you turn it the right way up: If the goverment creates a distinction between Hispanics and Non-Hispanic Whites, what does that tell you about Hispanics and their dominant race? Otherwise, why not simply refer to them as Whites and Hispanics, if they are so racially diferrent?

Great. So let's see some consistency.

                 
Quote
Come on, admit it... You just figured it out, as you typed the response, now didn't you?

You're probably correct that I initially misunderstood your point, but don't interpret my misunderstanding of your bong and ouzo-fueled posts as a lack of understanding of the FBI categories themselves. In other words, I overestimated you, but won't do it again.  :D  :D  :D

                 
Quote
"Appreciable numbers"? Watch your back with those goalposts, Ghost. Why should I show something I have not claimed? In case you forgot, our dispute was this: You claimed that the FBI (as part of that great 'Conspiracy' made a dishonest distinction by "lumping up" Hispanics with whites as offenders, and treating them separately as victims. I explained that your sources were BSing you, and that it was a valid distinction because only the race of the offenders was evaluated- while Hispanics get their category as a victim because of ethnic bias crimes against them. And race had nothing to do with that, since as offenders they'd be for the most part (90%, I guess) with whites. I said nothing about percentages: I said that's how it should be.

For the life of me, I can't see how this is meaningful. Thugs who want to target white people do so. In selecting their victims, it's hard to see why they would choose Hispanics, who

1) Are not white

2) Are not viewed as white; and

3) Are not going to be mistaken for white.

Now, we can argue all day about whether Hispanics should be classified as "white", "mixed", or "other", and then debate how consistently the classifications should be applied across crime categories, but none of this changes the real point, which is that almost all white-targeted victims of hate crimes are, in fact, unambiguously white. In any case, I really do understand your argument -- I just find it inane.
             
Quote
And, like I said, when you guys take over you can 'make' Hispanics a distinct race- or, even better, you can start collecting the nationality of all offenders as well  (and I can only imagine the effect that would have on the "liberal media"  )

Uhhh Faid, are you implying something about the ethnic make-up of our media? This type of allegation doesn't help your liberal cred any, Faid. I'm just sayin'........
             
Quote
... But you cannot claim that the FBI forged or cooked any data up to serve its "agenda", because it is simply not true.

Sure I can, because it is.
           
Quote
Whoa steady there, Siegfried... Don't get all excited. If I knew that the mental image I provided for you (of a beautiful young lady who has a dark complexion and is also Caucasian) would be so revolting to your poor Aryan mind, I'd have held my tongue. I readily apologise, and promise I'll keep the unspeakable horrors of reality to myself from now on.
(BTW, what race do you think the Turks are, Ghost?  :D )


Now, Faid, I told you to tell it to your shrink. You must have a rich fantasy life:

Faid: Sing, O muse, of the lust of Faid, that brought countless ills upon the archaens!



Muse: Und Caicosinseln keine shtuppen!

Faid:Ummmmmm.....Turkish women....


awowulwoulglowog!

Muse:

Nein! Nein!


rowlrowlgowruh....

   
Quote
No, what you wanted was to make "newcomers" think that you had triumphed on some old debate, a debate you had in fact backed away from, willingly. that doesn't prove you wrong, but it doesn't make you right either. But the "newcomers" wouldn't know that.... Typical of Paley.
Well, I don't think I need any more "evidence" now that you finally figured the whole thing out, ghost my friend.... But tell you what: You come back when you grow a pair and admit that what you did was crappy. And of course, apologize for accusing me of lying.

But I did triumph! I apologise for confusing opinion with fact, however. Next time I'll include a link.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2006,08:55   

Louis:
 
Quote
Awwww come on Ghosty, why don't you just say "I hate niggers!" and be done with it?

You know you're a racist scumbag trying to thinly disguise his bigotry with hastily googled misquotes and fallacious drivel. We know you're a racist scumbag trying to thinly disguise his bigotry with hastily googled misquotes and fallacious drivel.

Why beat about the Bush? (pun intended)

Why not just stick on your white sheet and hood and chant about how Jesus was white and will lead the Aryan race to dominance? Come on Ghosty, just be honest.


I'm not Dubya's biggest fan, but I'll give him credit: the man's no racist. Your insinuation says more about you than it does him.

You're still seething over being called a "homophobe", I see. Well, you might not be one, but the fact that you obviously view being gay as an insult suggests that you might have "problems", as they say. And based on the constant jabs at Denyse O'Leary for her looks and masculinity, I suspect that many posters on P.T. don't care much for lesbians and women outside of their encyclopedic pornography collections. What do I care? I'm not conflicted on these issues, because my conservatism lets me say exactly what I mean, consequences be damned. Ya'll oughta try being men, then maybe you'll feel better about yourselves and get non-inflatable girlfriends. Trust me, women want men, not self-loathing liberal wimps.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2006,09:24   

Hey, Louis, here's an interview with Michelle Malkin where she discusses her personal experiences with left-wing racial bigotry.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2006,11:59   

your pictorial essays are getting more and more confusing and idiotic.

a picture might say a thousand words, but if used indiscriminately, just end up increasing the amount of drivel you spew by that much more.

example:

what the he11 does a childhood picture of Ron Howard have to do with a picture of Kurt Russel?

You're losin it, man.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2006,01:56   

Ghosty,

First, the pun was not regarding Bush being racist (as far as I am aware he isn't), the pun was regarding religious uber "KKKonservative" facists like yourself usually worship W because he panders to your fundamentalist nonsense. I'm surprised to find you claiming not to fawn at his feet.

Second, I never said being gay was anything to be insulted by. Again, keep wittering Ghosty, you'll find no homophobic insult in what I said. What I DID say that you could be insulted by is that you are quite possibly a fucked up closet case, and thus your attempts at presenting yourself as a hyper-masculine women's wet dream and all round tough guy (Snake? Oh please! You're such a hoot) are quite clearly attempts at assuaging your own self loathing. And of course it's us "libruls" that are the "girly-men" who can't get the dates, bwaaaah ha haaaa. Yeah ok Ghosty, whatever you need to believe to get through the day. Project your own inadequacies onto others much?

Be away with you, you're becoming boring. Are you going to prove that geocentrist "model" of yours anytime soon? No? Didn't think so. Stop flannelling little Ghosty, and try to do some real work. You are STILL fooling no one. Shit or get off the pot Ghosty, either present your watertight geocentrist model (cough splutter, shyeah right! And aerially acrobatic winged simians might emerge from my anus) of just admit you can't and are either a rampaging Loki troll or a total fundamentalist asylum resident.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2006,02:51   

who needs asylums when you have public libraries to hang out in, eh gawp?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2006,05:39   

Icthyic,

I can't remember what the details of the US mental health system are but here in the UK we had/have a programme called "Care in the Community". Yes it's as good as it sounds.

For the people with "minor" mental illnesses it was a blessing, for the people who were totally incapable of caring for themselves and were a danger to themselves and others it was business as usual. For those intermediate/borderline patients it was a nightmare. In London in particular there was a upsurge in injuries and deaths of these "intermediate" patients. This was rather cynically known as "Care on the Northern Line", the Northern Line being a major line on te London Underground subway train system.

Care on the Northern Line did once provide me with an amusing incident. A crowded commuter train stopped at the platform I was on, my friend and I noticed that there was a space in one of the carriages as it passed and so raced for it. We elbowed our way into the centre of the carriage to get into the space and get a seat. As we burst through the crowd into that valuable and rare free space, we noticed a semi clad, clearly homeless and mentally disturbed "gentleman of the road" sat in the middle of the carriage masturbating furiously and noisily. As is standard practice in London, nobody was making eye contact with anyone else and everyone was very deliberately reading their Evening Standard. Which of course being British, is precisely what my friend and I immediately did. The gentleman of the road finished his round of hand to gland combat and got up, walked to the end of the carriage and got off at the next stop. Needless to say, no one sat down anywhere near his now empty seat.

Why do I bring this up? Well firstly, it's kind of funny in an unfortunate way. Secondly, it's an excellent analogy for GoP's behaviour. He is polluting our otherwise pleasant pubic space with his emissions. He is disturbing the flow of what could be otherwise pleasant conversations. The content of his emissions might be of some use to somebody, but I can't imagine who that might be. And finally, he is only pleasing himself at the expense of disgusting those around him.

Good day!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2006,09:26   

Louis:
     
Quote
Second, I never said being gay was anything to be insulted by. Again, keep wittering Ghosty, you'll find no homophobic insult in what I said.

Sorry, Louis, your behaviour on this and other threads says differently. Your long, loving descriptions of me and other creationists having anal sex, being "closet queens", and all this talk about "lavender" shows how you loathe gay culture. Understand, I don't care, I just find it so funny that you can't see how you come across. You don't even realise how your rampant stereotyping (I've done it too -- I once made a crack of a "leatherbar on every corner") offends many gay people. Trust me, I know several gay people, and while they don't appreciate my stance on gay marriage, they also wouldn't laugh at your "jokes". But at least with me, they get an honest opinion.
     
Quote
What I DID say that you could be insulted by is that you are quite possibly a fucked up closet case, and thus your attempts at presenting yourself as a hyper-masculine women's wet dream and all round tough guy (Snake? Oh please! You're such a hoot) are quite clearly attempts at assuaging your own self loathing. And of course it's us "libruls" that are the "girly-men" who can't get the dates, bwaaaah ha haaaa.

See, this is what you don't get. When I was liberal, all women ignored me, now that I'm conservative, most women ignore me. This is an improvement, not that I care: I'll stick with my gal. Actually, I'm finding myself getting "the look" on occasion from single women with young children, which irritates me. I know it's petty, but I find this whole idea of "let the 'bad boys' plant the seed and get a 'good guy' to raise it" a tad manipulative. But I try my best not to hold it against them; I've made more than my share of mistakes too. And maybe its cause I'm not a teenager anymore, but I find it harder and harder to take most women seriously. For all the talk, talk, talk, they make the same stupid decisions we guys do, so what's the point really?
As far as "liberal guys not getting dates", it's all about self respect. Why date a weenie who hates himself, hates his culture, hates his gender, and takes gets pushed around by other people? Let's look at your testimony, for example:

 
Quote
Care on the Northern Line did once provide me with an amusing incident. A crowded commuter train stopped at the platform I was on, my friend and I noticed that there was a space in one of the carriages as it passed and so raced for it. We elbowed our way into the centre of the carriage to get into the space and get a seat. As we burst through the crowd into that valuable and rare free space, we noticed a semi clad, clearly homeless and mentally disturbed "gentleman of the road" sat in the middle of the carriage masturbating furiously and noisily. As is standard practice in London, nobody was making eye contact with anyone else and everyone was very deliberately reading their Evening Standard. Which of course being British, is precisely what my friend and I immediately did. The gentleman of the road finished his round of hand to gland combat and got up, walked to the end of the carriage and got off at the next stop. Needless to say, no one sat down anywhere near his now empty seat.

So a whole trainload of "men" just averted their eyes while a guy masturbated right in front of them, their women, and their children. Wimps.

[edit: Well, on a commuter train there probably weren't too many families. I stand behind my opinion. Wimps.]

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2006,09:59   

By the way, Louis, if you're wondering if I back up my tough talk, the answer is yes. In fact, on separate occasions I've had thugs (one of them about 6'5'' or so) attempt to target me for racial violence. Nothing came from it when they saw I was ready to fight. In addition, I have to tell people to take their cell phones outside from time to time when I'm posting from this library. Then, there was the incident when....well, ya'll get the point. Accept it or reject it, the truth is there are still real men in the world, and almost all of them are conservative. I've seen too many video clips of strangers standing by while someone gets assaulted or even murdered. In fact, I once saw a clip where a young man was stabbing an elderly fellow on a bus. People were just quickly deboarding as if nothing serious was happening. One young gentleman just stood there, watching the assault. What cowards we've become!

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2006,10:21   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 22 2006,14:59)
the truth is there are still real men in the world, and almost all of them are conservative.

OMG - an all time classic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2006,14:37   

Quote
I can't remember what the details of the US mental health system


trust me when i say you're doing yourself a favor by forgetting.

Moreover, it just keeps getting worse all the time.  They just closed the last public mental health care facility in the entire Coachella Valley (Palm Springs; desert SW CA), and trust me when i say it wasn't for lack of need.

lots of stereotypes of mental illness being somehow more malignable than any other physical ailment; and a lot of that attitude coming from Gawp's brand of "conservative".

yet one more reason I don't want to raise a family here any more; the support networks are beginning to fail completely here in CA, and it's not any better in much of the rest of the US.

but we have a darn fine war to distract us from that, eh?

grrr...

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2006,14:40   

Quote
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 22 2006,14:59)
the truth is there are still real men in the world, and almost all of them are conservative.

OMG - an all time classic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


...but he can't be a man 'cause he doesn't smoke... the same cigarettes as me.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2006,14:43   

Quote (Ichthyic @ July 22 2006,19:40)
Quote
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 22 2006,14:59)
the truth is there are still real men in the world, and almost all of them are conservative.

OMG - an all time classic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


...but he can't be a man 'cause he doesn't smoke... the same cigarettes as me.

I really like that song. The first version I heard was by the rolling stones.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2006,14:54   

I could be wrong, as the rise of the stones pretter much marks the limits of my personal music history, but didn't the stones actually write that one themselves?

the original and the best.

as a funky sidenote and totally OT, I used to work for the guy who managed them during their heyday (before the ancient rocker tours).

He was about as far from the rock and roll scene as one could possibly imagine when I knew him though.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2006,21:55   

Ghosty,

Ahhh but it's easy to fish you in. Keep playing, you never know you might score a hit. Until then it is amusing to make you dance like a monkey. Dance monkey, dance!

Louis

P.S. Wimps? Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha. You're killing me, Ghosty.

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2006,23:08   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 22 2006,14:26)
Let's look at your testimony, for example:

 
Quote
Care on the Northern Line did once provide me with an amusing incident. A crowded commuter train stopped at the platform I was on, my friend and I noticed that there was a space in one of the carriages as it passed and so raced for it. We elbowed our way into the centre of the carriage to get into the space and get a seat. As we burst through the crowd into that valuable and rare free space, we noticed a semi clad, clearly homeless and mentally disturbed "gentleman of the road" sat in the middle of the carriage masturbating furiously and noisily. As is standard practice in London, nobody was making eye contact with anyone else and everyone was very deliberately reading their Evening Standard. Which of course being British, is precisely what my friend and I immediately did. The gentleman of the road finished his round of hand to gland combat and got up, walked to the end of the carriage and got off at the next stop. Needless to say, no one sat down anywhere near his now empty seat.

So a whole trainload of "men" just averted their eyes while a guy masturbated right in front of them, their women, and their children. Wimps.

[edit: Well, on a commuter train there probably weren't too many families. I stand behind my opinion. Wimps.]

So what course of action would you recommend GoP?
I reckon I would also have avoided "noticing".

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2006,10:23   

Louis:
 
Quote
Ahhh but it's easy to fish you in. Keep playing, you never know you might score a hit. Until then it is amusing to make you dance like a monkey. Dance monkey, dance!

Yeah, you're a real bada$$, Lou. At least when there aren't any masturbating hobos around.

Stephen Elliot:
 
Quote
So what course of action would you recommend GoP?
I reckon I would also have avoided "noticing".

Well, let's see, how about something like this: "While I respect your right to sexually gratify yourself, we don't allow public displays of self-affection in this civilisation. So I'll give you three choices: Pull your pants up and stay on the train, leave the train voluntarily, or leave the train head-first. You have five seconds to make up your mind." If he starts arguing, execute option 3. Chances are he won't, though. People like that count on you being scared; when you show you aren't and you mean business, they'll take their bad selves elsewhere. Even if they're "insane".

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2006,12:20   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 23 2006,15:23)
Stephen Elliot:
   
Quote
So what course of action would you recommend GoP?
I reckon I would also have avoided "noticing".

Well, let's see, how about something like this: "While I respect your right to sexually gratify yourself, we don't allow public displays of self-affection in this civilisation. So I'll give you three choices: Pull your pants up and stay on the train, leave the train voluntarily, or leave the train head-first. You have five seconds to make up your mind." If he starts arguing, execute option 3. Chances are he won't, though. People like that count on you being scared; when you show you aren't and you mean business, they'll take their bad selves elsewhere. Even if they're "insane".

So, you advocate atempting logical discourse and possibly physical violence against a person with a mental disability? That hardly sounds "manly".

Where it to an anti-social oik I would aplaud you, but not against a rather tragic person.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2006,14:53   

Quote
Accept it or reject it, the truth is there are still real men in the world, and almost all of them are conservative
Quote
By the way, Louis, if you're wondering if I back up my tough talk, the answer is yes

Oh, noes, a bulletin-board tuffy.
As a successful conservative thinker awash in testosterone and bluster, I can see why you'd be using a library computer and chasing away big mean mens with cell phones. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
If you need more quarters to put in the pay-as-you-go computers there, you let me know, and I'll send you a few. I'm nothing if not helpful to my less-fortunate fellow citizens, GoP. Heck, if I saw you pushing around your supermarket cart, I might even wave hi.
On, the other hand, yeah, I think you got some issues if you propose on beating up the mentally ill on a train. Overcompensating is my guess.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2006,23:10   

Ahhh Ghosty,

You do make I larf! Keep dancing monkey, I shall poke you some more. Dance, monkey! Dance! Don't make me electrify the floor, monkey, you are my dancing monkey bitch!

Oooh you back up your tough talk do you? Oh I'm shivering all over! Most conservatives are real men like you are they? Doubtful, I'm sure of two things: 1) some conservatives are "real men", 2) you are certainly not a "real man" by any stretch of those words. After all you are bragging about your physical prowess and manly nature on an internet bulletin board. Who is it that posts piccies of big tough men? Who is it that posts lots of piccies of pretty girls when accused of being an angry little closet case? Who is it that witters on about their butch manliness and fighting nature? Is it me? Nope. Is it any of the other "libruls" here? Nope. It's just you.

Oh dear, you make me laugh. Your pathetic psychology couldn't be more obivous. You really think that making macho claims over the internets will impress anyone or intimidate anyone? Bwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahhahahahahahahaha! You truly are a pathetic little maggot Ghosty.

Listen dumbass, I have heard every threat, claim and piece of macho bullshit from dozens of losers like you. If you COULD do something physical Ghosty, you wouldn't need to brag about it or make silly faux macho comments on an internet. What I love about this is you are playing to so many comedy stereotypes. The conservative bigot, uninformed by the evidence. The deluded creationist, uninformed by the evidence. The closet homosexual, desperately trying to "re-masculinise" himself due to rampant self loathing. The racist, trying to veneer his bigotry with "evidence" of the shoddiest kind. And now, most amusingly, the Intarnets Tuff-Hombre.

Oh and for the record Ghosty, I don't beat up mentally ill homeless people. Like Steve said, had it been a young oik, well aware of his actions, that would be a different matter. Actions appropriate to situation. Anyway, that story was meant to illustrate the inadequacies of our mental health system, and also the amusingly shy behaviour of London commuters. It's a cliche how involved in their Evening Standards tube commuters get when anything happens. And one NEVER talks on the tube, that just idenitifies one as a lunatic. DOn't you know anything? ;) You can call people wimps all you like Ghosty, doesn't make it so, after all you don't know the whole story, just the brief sketch I presented. How do you know no one had tried to stop him previously? How do you know there wasn't blood trickling from his nose where one gent had already battered him?

Anyway, the details of that day aren't the point. The point is that with your postings of macho men followed by rapid denials and pics of pretty girls, your regular "girly-man" denouncements of "libruls" and your apportioning all blame for all things evil in the world to "libruls" (even going so far as to claim that Hitler was a liberal of all things), your arrogant dismissal of, erm well, ALL science, and your current penchant for faux macho bullshit, your psychology is painfully clear.

Like I said before Ghosty, I'm no badass, never claimed to be, but I can make you dance to any tune I want to play.

Any chance of your geocentric model yet Ghosty? Or are we just going to get more details of your crush on Eric, your love of big wrestler boys, and your oh so macho intimidation of people with mocile phones?

No please, keep that closet door shut. The FSM only knows how camp you'd go if you ever came out. Shit, I think you'd make Peewee Herman look like Mike Tyson.

Have you deluded little inadequate.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,05:01   

Louis and Nine:

You've got to be the funniest Mutt n' Jeff act I've encountered on the internet. In one corner, we've got Hurricane Louie, talkin' trash and launching verbal fusilades. Quantity compensates for quality here. His partner, on the other hand, draws upon his extensive experiences in the gang/crab bucket wars to craft a more refined psychological attack. Unfortunately, each suffers from a weakness that isn't compensated by the other's putative strengths: Louis's bluster can't quite cover his whitebread distaste for and fear of the lesser breeds, women and "queers" in particular, whereas Nine's background has bred an active dislike for the homeless and working poor. Nine, despite his obvious intellect and erudition, hasn't completely grokked the enemy mindset, while Louis's nerdlinger background can't quite patch Nine's cultural shortcomings. But keep working it, guys, yer very good for amateurs.

:D  :D  :D  :D

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,06:02   

Ghosty,

Uh huh. Mmmm smell that bullshit. You try so hard to be superior, but let's be honest, you're intellectually deficient pond life.

Nice try though.

Louis

P.S. How do you know I am neither a woman or gay? I might be both!

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,06:56   

Since your Mutt n' Jeff act needs serious work, I'd like to give you a little advice:

1) Internet bluster works better when the blusterer doesn't fess up to a fear of masturbating hobos;

2) Try to put yourself in enemy's mindset. Due to our inverted snobbery, whites are immune to taunts about being homeless, not owning a computer, etc. Better to push the "budgie" angle: "Hey Ghost, I'm sorry that ya gotta put up with those middle aged businessmen on cells, what with the flood in yer parent's basement shorting out yer Dell and all!" Now that's a flame!

3) Don't hurl Freudian insults like "projection", "overcompensation", etc, especially to conservatives. We view Freud as a quack with a cigar. See Frederick Crews for more detail.

Let me know if this helps! By the way, you both might have to work your act to a passive audience from now on, as I don't want to get on Wes's bad side. I suspect he's not happy with our posturing, so I'm going to focus on the arguments.

[Now Wes, that's a real man! He could even give Eric a few lessons!]

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,08:09   

Quote
Nine's background has bred an active dislike for the homeless and working poor.

Well, gosh, color me surprised. Not only are you a bulletin board tuffy, but you want to pose as a psychic, too.
Let me make this quite clear: if I insult you directly, this has no bearing on my feelings about poor people or the homeless in general -- I have a great deal of sympathy for the less fortunate -- however I have little tolerance for irritants like you, GoP.
This has nothing to do with job or class or homelessness, it has to do with your patently bizarre claims, your willingness to offer up general insults, your obvious need for attention and your lack of intellectual depth or rigor while you pose and preen about your political/philosophical/religious views.
If you are indeed part of the homeless working poor, GoP, I find it inexplicable why you would support the neocon policies that have led to the current economic state of affairs here in the U.S. Today, for instance, the Los Angeles Times reported that inflation-adjusted wages for the 30 million americans with a bachelor's-level college degree were flat for the years 2000-2004, the last year available for analysis.
Let's put that in perspective, Dipshit. Gross Domestic Product has increased the last three years at an average of 3.8 %...Unemployment remains low, at 4.6%...but who is getting the money from the current economy?

Well, let's look at the unemployment rates: Of the 6.5 million jobs created since 2001, half of those were "contingent" positions composed of part-time and freelance positions without benefits. Jobs continue to be siphoned overseas or to a large number of illegal immigrant workers here in the US, keeping that Bush in fact favors amnesty for the 12 million illegal workers currently in the US. Furthermore the current unemployment figures fail to represent the numbers of chronic unemployed who have ceased even looking for jobs.

Last August the Census Bureau reported that real median family income — the purchasing power of the typical family — actually fell. Meanwhile, poverty increased, as did the number children in poverty and the number of  Americans without health insurance. So where did the growth go? Well, if you *exclude* capital gains from a rising stock market, in 2004 the real income of the richest 1 percent of Americans surged by almost 12.5 percent. Meanwhile, the average real income of the bottom 99 percent of the population rose only 1.5 percent. In other words, a relative handful of people received most of the benefits of growth. Growth didn’t just bypass the poor and the lower middle class, it bypassed the upper middle class too. Even people at the 95th percentile of the income distribution — that is, people richer than 19 out of 20 Americans — gained only **modestly**. The big increases went only to people who were already in the economic 1%, while the real earnings of the typical college graduate actually fell in 2004. In short, it’s a great economy if you’re a high-level corporate executive or someone who owns a lot of stock.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,09:17   

Nine:
       
Quote
Well, gosh, color me surprised. Not only are you a bulletin board tuffy, but you want to pose as a psychic, too.

Well, when in Rome.....
       
Quote
Let me make this quite clear: if I insult you directly, this has no bearing on my feelings about poor people or the homeless in general -- I have a great deal of sympathy for the less fortunate -- however I have little tolerance for irritants like you, GoP.

Yeah, I see your sympathy for poor people: it extends to those who agree with you. Those who don't get insulted, with a side-order of upper-class paternalism thrown in for measure. This is a trend I notice quite a bit with rich liberals. As OJ once said on the subject of dating Black women, "I don't shovel coal". Sad, really.
       
Quote
This has nothing to do with job or class or homelessness, it has to do with your patently bizarre claims, your willingness to offer up general insults, your obvious need for attention and your lack of intellectual depth or rigor while you pose and preen about your political/philosophical/religious views.

Then why bring up my income? If you don't look down on poor people, then why frame an insult around my economic status? Especially when it has nothing to do with my ability to support my arguments?
       
Quote
If you are indeed part of the homeless working poor, GoP, I find it inexplicable why you would support the neocon policies that have led to the current economic state of affairs here in the U.S.

     You can relax, dude, because while I'm not well-to-do by any measure, I'm certainly not poor. In fact, several years ago I was able to graduate from an apartment to a house, so I'm OK on the home front. (heh!;))

As for the politics, I'm about as big an enemy of the neocons as it's possible for a philosemitic conservative to be*, so your little lecture amounted to naught. I've made this clear several times; ask Eric, Cogzie, and Flint if you don't believe me.

*the Pat Buchanan types also being opposed to neocon philosophy

[snip boilerplate lecture cribbed from Molly Ivins]

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,10:05   

Quote
Then why bring up my income? If you don't look down on poor people, then why frame an insult around my economic status? Especially when it has nothing to do with my ability to support my arguments?


Probably because it simply is just as insulting to you as your snide little digs at me in absentia were in this thread. Like your caricatures of my views? Your posturing as a tough-guy that is going to beat up some old nutcase on a train? The fact that you are operating out of a library? What's good for you to use is also good for me to use, GoP, correct? And it continues on in your last post, GoP... claiming that I only have sympathy for the poor that agree with me? Or that I tossed in some paternalism? Or that you can say you know my economic class?

You're awfully thin-skinned for one that painted me as:  
 
Quote
That's why Number Nine gets pi$$y at Dave's childhood stories; he sees Dave as belonging to a race of colonisers and exploiters, not as a fellow white man.
Considering that I am not " a fellow white man" to AirHead , nope I don't. Has no semblance in reality, although you will note that I told Dave his dad seemed like a nice guy before he (AirHead) launched into his plantation spiel.

Oh, and your guesswork about my being "rich" is also wrong. Not that being wrong is unfamiliar to you. You can untwist your knickers now, GoP.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,11:16   

Nine:
         
Quote
         
Quote
 
Then why bring up my income? If you don't look down on poor people, then why frame an insult around my economic status? Especially when it has nothing to do with my ability to support my arguments?




Probably because it simply is just as insulting to you as your snide little digs at me in absentia were in this thread. Like your caricatures of my views?


In other words, "I don't really view being poor as an insult, but I thought GoP might, so I threw it out there anyway!" Even if I found this plausible or moral, it doesn't change the fact that the insult came so "naturally" to you. But hey, that's between you and yer lib conscience.
       
Quote
Your posturing as a tough-guy that is going to beat up some old nutcase on a train?

Nutcase? Wow, you're a fount of inadvertent insights into the liberal brain. But since Mr. Elliot also expressed concern with this strategy, let's just say that if I saw that the offender was really mentally incapacitated, I would escort him from the train as gently as possible. But I would escort him, because not only is such behaviour offensive to civilisation, it also indicates a potentially dangerous predator.
       
Quote
       
Quote
 
That's why Number Nine gets pi$$y at Dave's childhood stories; he sees Dave as belonging to a race of colonisers and exploiters, not as a fellow white man.

Considering that I am not " a fellow white man" to AirHead , nope I don't. Has no semblance in reality, although you will note that I told Dave his dad seemed like a nice guy before he (AirHead) launched into his plantation spiel.

Learn to read for comprehension. It's Faid who thinks Latinos are white, not me. Not that there's anything wrong with that; heck, like many Americans, I ain't "quite white" meself (the Amerindian heritage is really obvious in my maternal grandma). And if you complimented his Dad earlier, I apologise. (This is one reason why I wish Dave would allow us to break his thread up! Dave, please be reasonable about this  :angry: ).
Anyway, could you please tell me what you find racist in Dave's posts? Crabby made the same charge but didn't back it up.
 
Quote
Oh, and your guesswork about my being "rich" is also wrong. Not that being wrong is unfamiliar to you. You can untwist your knickers now, GoP.

Naaah, I figured your job didn't pay the best, but your post implied otherwise, so I was just going along.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2006,22:31   

Ghosty,

Internet bluster? Moi? I don't think so.

Was it I who advocated the beating of the mentally ill if engaged in offensive acts? Nope. Was it I who repeatedly posted pics of muscley men and cartoon characters about smashing "evos" and "libruls"? Nope. I could go on.

Please Ghosty, don't pretend to take the "high ground" with focussing on the "arguments". Let's get this straight, not only have you no arguments to focus on for more than the brief second it takes to realise you have no clue what you're talking about, but you are seriously deluded if you think that you have not done everything you can to slander those you oppose by association with Nazis or just outright insult them.

You can keep being a dishonest shit Ghosty, but don't expect to fool anyone.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,05:53   

Louis whines:
       
Quote
Was it I who advocated the beating of the mentally ill if engaged in offensive acts? Nope.

Good for you. Then again, neither was I. See my recent responses to Nine.
       
Quote
Was it I who repeatedly posted pics of muscley men and cartoon characters about smashing "evos" and "libruls"? Nope.

Wow, my pictures are really burning a hole into yer p-nut brain, ain't they? Maybe I should post a few more to keep you company during those long, lonely hours at the lab.


The middle guy (heh!;)) is pretty cute, isn't he? He's also a good fighter. The sport has some of the best athletes around, but since the "whitebreads" do a little too well, the MSM won't cover it even though the ratings are through the roof.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,07:26   

IN response to Paleys quip about what cowards we have become:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5214104.stm

Quote
The pensioner fought back, refused to let go of her bag and screamed for help. Members of the public grabbed Bews and held him until police arrived.


So, given CoP exhibits signs of being a creationist, do you reckon this one incident disproves his entire thesis?

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,08:05   

Arlo wrote:
 
Quote
So, given CoP exhibits signs of being a creationist, do you reckon this one incident disproves his entire thesis?

How old was this lady? Did she grow up before, or after, the hippies took over?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,09:13   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 25 2006,10:53)
He's also a good fighter. The sport has some of the best athletes around, but since the "whitebreads" do a little too well, the MSM won't cover it even though the ratings are through the roof.

Not being based in the USA, I have no idea what sports are given most coverage.

Is swimming reported? Whitey tends to do quite well at that. Swimmers are also fairly athletic I believe.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,10:00   

S. Elliot:
       
Quote
Not being based in the USA, I have no idea what sports are given most coverage.

Is swimming reported? Whitey tends to do quite well at that. Swimmers are also fairly athletic I believe.


Outside of Olympic coverage, no. But the ratings may not justify it. I do remember the diver Greg Louganis getting a lot of airtime, but I think he's admitted to being gay, so I don't know if he would count. I remember MMA fighter Maurice Smith being on a talk show after he beat Mark Coleman, but after his loss to Randy Couture the media seemed to lose interest (coincidentally, I am sure, Mo is black and the other two fellas are white). Anyway, Spike TV (on cable) hosts some matches, and video stores like Blockbusters will carry DVD copies of PPV matches, but otherwise it's considered a "fringe" sport despite the fact that some MMA programming (The Ultimate Fighter, for example) beats the Big Three in national ratings. Also, there's occasional threats to ban MMA, despite the fact that the organisers have made the sport much safer. The IOC is threatening to drop boxing from the Olympic games. %^$#% Russians!  :D  :D  :D  :D

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,10:42   

By the way, the North American media does fret if a sport becomes too white, as this sarcastic blogger notes. Here's some supporting evidence. Some European journalists get nervous too.

But when it's the other way, it's either peachy or due to biology.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,12:15   

Given the article says she was 85 years old in the first paragraph, I think we can safely say that GoP is exhibiting all the signs of creationist selective reading.  Is there a fancy latin name for this?

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,13:31   

The funny thing about the whole race/sports issue is that most conservatives don't give a toss about "racially correct" teams; we just want one that wins. Sure, it's nice to see one of our boys do well (Jeremy Wariner is a beast), but that's not what ties you to a sport. When I think of boxing, I think of Sugar Ray Leonard, Ali, Thomas Hearns, Marvin Hagler, Aaron Pryor and my all-time hero, Alexis Arguello. When baseball comes to mind, I remember Dale Murphy, Tom Glavine, and the other great Braves stars. Let the athletes compete and the best ones will shake out. They don't need the media's "help".

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2006,22:26   

Whassamatter Ghosty?

Tired of being a demonstrably deluded little inadequate? Why are you wasting your/our time with your nonsensical and paranoid fantasies about racial bias and "librul" conspiracies? Is it because you lack the intellectual honesty or ability to produce your much touted geocentric bullshit...oops sorry....model? Is it because you have no evidence for this at all? Is it because your mouth makes claims neither your body or mind can support?

Why yes it is!

You're just a teensy bit pathetic aren't you Ghosty. Pity poor Ghosty for he is weak and stupid and he is a self loathing closet case. Pity poor Ghosty because he obviously lost in love to a "librul", i.e. his hand rejected him. Sorry Ghosty, you're just a wanker, it's only a pity your father wasn't. May your earholes turn to arseholes so you shit all over your shirt, as they say!

Now do the geocentrism or I shall taunt you some more.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 26 2006,08:33   

Mutt:
 
Quote
Why are you wasting your/our time with your nonsensical and paranoid fantasies about racial bias and "librul" conspiracies?

Because I keep hearing about stuff like this:
Quote
A branch of one of the world's biggest banks has been found guilty of racism after a senior member of staff told a colleague she would be voting for Robert Kilroy-Silk at the last general election because she said he promised to "get rid of the foreigners".

The remark was overheard by another employee, who sued the bank, HSBC, for race discrimination. Ruby Schembri, 35, a Maltese national, reported the remark. This week an employment tribunal ruled the remark could be construed as racist and ordered HSBC and the supervisor to pay compensation. The case is one of the first to find that a comment not directly made to another person can constitute racism.
[....]
She said: "Debbie asked Rosemary if she supported the Tory or Labour Party and bluntly stated, 'I am against immigration'. My ears pricked up and then Debbie added 'I hate foreigners'. I was shocked and offended. Debbie made her statement with real conviction." Ms Johnstone had made no reply.

(...)
In her witness statement, Ms Jones said that all she had said was that she would vote for Mr. Kilroy-Silk because he would get rid of immigrants. She denied using the word foreigners. But the tribunal considered her contemporaneous statement, made in 2005, when she admitted she had said she would vote for Mr. Kilroy-Silk because he "would get rid of the foreigners". The tribunal chairman said it was reasonable to infer that the remark showed a "substantial dislike of foreigners".
[...]
Lawrence Davies, of Equal Justice Solicitors, yesterday called for the De Souza decision to be removed from British law. He said: "The intention or aim of the maker is irrelevant, it is sufficient that it caused offence." A spokesman for HSBC said that Ms Schembri had won on just one of five grounds, and that Ms Jones had since been given race awareness training.
[...]
The European Union rejects theories which attempt to determine the existence of separate human races. The use of the term "racial origin" in this Directive does not imply an acceptance of such theories.
[...]
In the minds of European policy advisers, minority communities throughout the EU require not only protection from racial disadvantage but also better integration to prevent them becoming a volatile underclass undermining a more inclusive Europe. The EU Commission recognized this long ago and set about creating the climate within which to take action against the growing menace of racism. It remained vigilant, nevertheless, of the fact that political volatility brought on by economic black spots led to an increase in xenophobia. The fact that economic prosperity also relies on a mobile and younger migrant community, a readily available source of cheap labour, is not to be discounted.

See the site for the source of these quotes. So let's see: the British government, and presumably the rest of Europe, are supplying freshly-minted citizens with the legal right to have white people sent to "reeducation" camps on a moment's notice, with noncompliance resulting in loss of livelihood and possible prison time. Understand?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 26 2006,10:52   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 25 2006,13:05)
Arlo wrote:
 
Quote
So, given CoP exhibits signs of being a creationist, do you reckon this one incident disproves his entire thesis?

How old was this lady? Did she grow up before, or after, the hippies took over?

Did you try looking at the link?

She was 85

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 26 2006,23:35   

Ghosty,

Guess what? I think that story is abysmal too. There's a lot in the article I agree with, people in positions of authority have a duty to respect the diverse nature of their employees, the woman's comment was crass and potentially offensive, but merits no more than a quite comment from anyone so offended. I also agree with some aspects of the EU racial integration policies, although I will agree these are sometimes enacted foolishly.

What the offended party should have done is.......pretty much nothing. I am sick of "I'm offended" being the standard by which free speech and social discourse are governed. If this offended party had any sense, the most she should have done is quietly take the offender aside at a suitably opportune and discrete moment and quietly mention that she overheard the comment, clearly not intended for her ears, and would welcome any opportunity to discuss it, and would greatly appreciate if such sentiments were not expressed in her presence again. And that is the limit of what is needed. Personally, I would have ignored it if it were an isolated incident.

Mind you, if there was a racist culture in that branch, in which this person was the victim of daily abuse and discrimination (and reading the case I don't think she was) then she has every right and duty to go to a tribunal and sort the racist scumbag out.

Less sensitivity and more sense on the part of the offendee, more empathy and sense on the part of the offender. Simple, sensible manners and professionalism get you though the day every time.

Were I to have views like that of the offender (and I don't) I would certainly not express them in the workplace and certainly not in earshot of colleagues who might be mortally offended and feel persecuted. It's the give and take of the professional world.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Tim



Posts: 40
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2006,04:23   

Quote
See the site for the source of these quotes. So let's see: the British government, and presumably the rest of Europe, are supplying freshly-minted citizens with the legal right to have white people sent to "reeducation" camps on a moment's notice, with noncompliance resulting in loss of livelihood and possible prison time. Understand?

Just to add to Louis' points above, what on earth has this case got to do with a "liberal conspiracy" in the first place?

As someone who works for the HSBC umbrella and is acutely aware of their sensitivity to such things as race awareness, this seems to me to be a global bank which is explicitly promoting a culturally diverse work ethic internally, and its "The World's Local Bank" ethic externally, protecting its image.

A case like this is potentially damaging to this carefully nurtured commercial image. It could damage sales, the bottom line, and, in toto, what is more important to HSBC than that?

If you'll read your quoted source more carefully, you'll note that it is HSBC themselves who sent their errant employee on "race awareness training", not the courts, not the British Government, and not as the result of any EU directive. So you are wrong on that count GoP. The employee did not lose her job, nor was she disciplined internally. So you are wrong on that count too.

Liberal conspiracy? Pff. It's about protecting corporate image and the bottom line. Liberalism need not apply.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2006,05:29   

Tim:
 
Quote
A case like this is potentially damaging to this carefully nurtured commercial image. It could damage sales, the bottom line, and, in toto, what is more important to HSBC than that?

If you'll read your quoted source more carefully, you'll note that it is HSBC themselves who sent their errant employee on "race awareness training", not the courts, not the British Government, and not as the result of any EU directive.

True enough, I should have been clearer on that. But why do you think these measures are necessary in the first place? In America, corporations conduct "sensitivity seminars", hire "diversity consultants", and impose "speech codes" as a cynical measure to avoid lawsuits by the EEOC. Very little of this is truly voluntary. And the American companies seek an artificially "diverse" workplace to meet de facto quota requirements, not because they find a multicultural workplace fetching. They want the best people for the job, and if that means nothing but Indians, Jews, and Koreans, so be it. Too bad the government finds these groups, as well as white gentiles, too competitive; excuse me, "indicative of institutional racism".

Are things really that different in the UK?

Quote
Liberal conspiracy? Pff. It's about protecting corporate image and the bottom line. Liberalism need not apply.


Excellent! So now we can dismantle heavy-handed government regulation in this area, correct? After all, the companies don't need it, because the "bottom line" demands multicultural companies. Or do I misinterpret?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2006,06:49   

Tim:
           
Quote
The employee did not lose her job, nor was she disciplined internally. So you are wrong on that count too.

Whoops. Forgot to address this claim.

Well, that clearly wasn't my point. My point was, if she had refused the class, she would have been disciplined or fired. I can't prove this, but it's a logical inference. Also, the EU commission is clearly itching to insert itself into the marketplace, or jawbone the local governments into doing so. Trust me, you ain't seen nothin' yet.


Mid Voice:
           
Quote
Did you try looking at the link?

She was 85

No, Mr. Vidal, you are mistaken: irony is dead on both sides of the Atlantic.

Louis:
         
Quote
Guess what? I think that story is abysmal too. There's a lot in the article I agree with, people in positions of authority have a duty to respect the diverse nature of their employees, the woman's comment was crass and potentially offensive, but merits no more than a quite comment from anyone so offended. I also agree with some aspects of the EU racial integration policies, although I will agree these are sometimes enacted foolishly.

See, here's my problem. If minority cultures are really "all that", to use a phrase that American liberals can understand, then why are minority peoples so sensitive? I mean, I see white-bashing and stereotypes all the time, and while I do complain, it's mostly because it's coupled with government regulation. The racism itself doesn't worry me; heck, one of the few shows I watch is King of the Hill, which savages white culture and people. I like it cause it's funny and the white stereotypes escape the cage their creators place them in. Sorta like being a black fan of Amos n' Andy, I guess. By the way, The Simpsons was also intended as a send-up of white, middle-class people. Makes no difference; Homer's great, and that's all that counts.
       
Quote
What the offended party should have done is.......pretty much nothing. I am sick of "I'm offended" being the standard by which free speech and social discourse are governed. If this offended party had any sense, the most she should have done is quietly take the offender aside at a suitably opportune and discrete moment and quietly mention that she overheard the comment, clearly not intended for her ears, and would welcome any opportunity to discuss it, and would greatly appreciate if such sentiments were not expressed in her presence again. And that is the limit of what is needed. Personally, I would have ignored it if it were an isolated incident.

Yes, I agree with keeping your politics to yourself in a professional setting. But I think you're missing the point. You're interpreting minority viewpoints in terms of Western concepts like tolerance, fair play, self-restraint, and empathy for the other person's POV. Non-Western cultures do not embrace these attitudes.  For example, I can't tell you the number of times I've heard black, mestizo, or Muslim associates whine about "racist mindsets" on Monday, and then make disparaging comments about Jews, Asians, Whites, and other ethnic groups on Tuesday. Don't take my word for it; listen to what their leaders and entertainers say. If you point out the hypocrisy, they usually respond with, "Everybody knows it's true with these people". Muslims, as a group, don't want to assimilate to the West; they want to replace it. They'll cynically play the "religious discrimination" card when they're in the minority; as soon as they become the majority they drive out competing faiths (and yes, Christians often behave this way too--doesn't change the fact that it's Christian, and not Islamic, nations that people are flocking to). That's why ethnic minorities almost never complain when the racial disparities favour them -- only when it goes against them. Yes, there are many individual exceptions, but the general cultural differences are very obvious.
   
Quote
Mind you, if there was a racist culture in that branch, in which this person was the victim of daily abuse and discrimination (and reading the case I don't think she was) then she has every right and duty to go to a tribunal and sort the racist scumbag out.

Define "racist culture", "abuse", and "discrimination". I find these words have very vague parameters in practice. Besides, if they find it so intolerable, why not start their own businesses like penniless Indians, Koreans, etc. do? Somehow, Whitey can't keep these groups down. Why not? I thought white racism was all-powerful.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2006,10:29   

This will be my last post today, so I thought I'd end with a nice quote that shows the futility of Louis's point of view. Enjoy:
 
Quote
In a true, totalitarian society such as the old Soviet Union, crime rates are usually low because of the crushing state control of all its citizens. Supposedly, street crime in Moscow in the USSR was rare, probably because the state itself was the biggest criminal. In contrast, in the European Union of today, which is not a totalitarian society, at least not yet, crime rates are booming in major cities. At the same time, authorities are stepping up censorship efforts, openly talking about media “speech codes” and aggressively slapping labels such as “racism” or “xenophobia” on anybody daring to criticize the immigration policies or pointing out the inadequate response to Muslim gang violence.

There is obviously a connection here: The less control the authorities have with Muslims, the more control they want to exercise over non-Muslims. As problems in Europe get worse, which they will, the EU will move in an increasingly repressive direction until it either becomes a true, totalitarian entity or falls apart. This strange mix of powerful censorship of public debate, yet little control over public law and order, has by some been labelled anarcho-tyranny.

While Islamic groups in Britain openly brag about how they are going to subdue the country by violent means or call for beheading those insulting Islam, Bryan Cork, 49, of Carlisle, Cumbria, in the Lake District, was sentenced to six months in jail for standing outside a mosque shouting, “Proud to be British,” and “Go back to where you came from.” One British court ruled that even use of the word “immigrant” as an insult could amount to proof of racial hostility.
[....]
The author of the most important book on the subject – a German professor of ancient Semitic and Arabic languages – prefers to write under the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg. Not because of lawsuits of “racism,” but out of plain fear for Muslim violence. According to Luxenberg, the chapters or suras of the Koran usually ascribed to the Mecca period, which are also the most tolerant and non-violent ones as opposed to the much harsher and more violent chapters from Medina, are not “Islamic” at all, but Christian:
[....]
George Orwell said: “If freedom of speech means anything at all, it is the freedom to say things that people do not want to hear,” and he was right. Multiculturalists who claim that freedom of speech does not include the freedom to offend others are wrong. In the doctrine of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, published in 1859, the right to freedom of expression and its conditions are stated clearly. The most fundamental principle of a freely operating liberal society is the right to the “freedom of opinion.” The only exception in which Mill conceived such freedom to be limited was if it were to impose severe harm onto others – and he declared this to be a rare thing.

Gerard Alexander warns against what he calls “illiberal Europe,” by which he means the dramatic expansion of laws to sanction speech that “incites hatred” against groups based on their religion, race or ethnicity. Such laws have been passed in Western European nations since the 1970s. “The real danger posed by Europe’s speech laws is not so much guilty verdicts as an insidious chilling of political debate, as people censor themselves in order to avoid legal charges and the stigma and expense they bring.”

This “swirl of speech-law charges, lawsuits, and investigations” is now sustained by an “antiracism” industry. “Europe’s speech laws are written and applied in ways that leave activists on the political left free to whitewash crimes of leftist regimes, incite hatred against their domestic bogeymen of the well-to-do, and luridly stereotype their international bogeymen, often with history-distorting falsehoods such as fictitious claims of genocide said to be committed by the United States and Israel. It may be no coincidence that Socialist and extreme-left parties have played central roles in the design of speech laws.”
[....]
In the book, Rasoel stated that “Being offended is sometimes purely a form of aggression.” A fitting commentary to both the Rushdie situation and the cartoon Jihad nearly a generation later. “The future is already here. The Netherlands is no longer the safe nation of the past, where a girl could walk alone through the park at night.” “The Dutch, and I mean those who aren’t six feet under ground already, have all in all turned into a frightened people, afraid to make jokes about Muslims, to offend them, fool them, and criticize or correct them.” “Dutchmen have basically been driven into a corner by the Muslims.”

Remember, this was written around 1990. And Rasoel warned that it would get worse. Much worse.

“The behavior of the Muslims currently hasn’t fully deployed yet, and can be compared to the one of the boy who is new at a club. It takes a while before the ice is broken and he starts to move more at ease, until at last his true nature becomes visible.” “And though the Dutch will fight for their norms and values, the Muslims will not only surprise them once again with their barbaric methods, they will punch straight through their soft and decent defense.” “Afterwards the Muslims will steadily continue to overmaster and dominate the Dutch, who will have no choice but to participate in a game of tug of war where they will steadily lose ground.” “By 2050 there will be no Netherlands left, or at least, nothing worth calling it that.”
[...]
The reason why European authorities are becoming increasingly totalitarian in their censorship efforts is to conceal the fact that they are no longer willing or able to uphold even the most basic security of their citizenry. If their governments are no longer capable of protecting them and their freedom of speech, Europeans may have to arm themselves to do this on their own. Michael Moore’s books, ridiculing American “gun nuts,” are bestsellers in Europe. Sadly, The Bill of Rights is less popular reading. Perhaps the time has come for Europeans to also take a second look at the Second Amendment – The right for the people to keep and bear arms.


A "gun nut": Someone who holds that the law-abiding have a right to life, too.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2006,00:18   

Ghosty,

"Nice" article....totally irrelevant. You're fighting a strawman of your own imagining. Perhaps I am a "liberal", but I think we have two very different meanings of that word in mind when we use it.

I don't think people of different "races" (it's not a term I think valid) or nationalities cannot be racist. Shit, I KNOW they can be. Talk to my mother-in-law to find out, she's worse than your average KKK member!

I am also worried about racism in policy and the workplace whoever it comes from, black, white or polka dotted green and mango. The colour of the racist, or the origin of the racist doesn't bother me, it's the racism that counts. Do we live in a perfect society? Nope. Do some of the "affirmative action" type programmes and "reverse discrimination" policies just make things worse and demonstrate a reverse racism in their own right? Yes, of course they do. What these policies are trying to do, no matter how badly in terms of their intent, is redress the balance, or if not redress it, at least try to make it fairer. Personally I am strongly against giving someone a job because they fulfill a racial quota or such like. I think it is highly patronising. What I think we should do is educate people to realise that perfect equality is a long hard road, and it's not something you get given, it's something you earn. Equality comes in after "educational" experiences like mixed schools, promoting diversity (not enforcing it), educating people about the commonalities we share not the differences alone. It really can and does work. I think "affirmative action" programmes can sometimes help, but more often they create suspicion and resentment. I think they are racist and counter productive in the main, although I am happy to be wrong about that.

I also agree with you aside about certain groups that have earnt their place in society by hard work, of course it is impossible to generalise but in British society at least I can think of several groups who have historically come in and worked their way up, not least the branch of one group that eventually (2 generations later) gave rise to me!

Anyway, we all know what you're doing Ghosty, googling about to support your own racist and anti-immigration views. Ask yourself one question Ghosty, how did you come to be born in the USA? Are you a native American? Or are you the child of immigrants? Is it possible that some of the immigrant community you are possibly from are less wonderful than yourself?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2006,04:52   

Louis:
 
Quote
I don't think people of different "races" (it's not a term I think valid) or nationalities cannot be racist. Shit, I KNOW they can be. Talk to my mother-in-law to find out, she's worse than your average KKK member!


Just out of curiosity, what race is your mother-in-law?

 
Quote
What I think we should do is educate people to realise that perfect equality is a long hard road, and it's not something you get given, it's something you earn. Equality comes in after "educational" experiences like mixed schools, promoting diversity (not enforcing it), educating people about the commonalities we share not the differences alone. It really can and does work.


All well and good. But suppose your gentler approach doesn't work -- what would you do then?

 
Quote
I also agree with you aside about certain groups that have earnt their place in society by hard work, of course it is impossible to generalise but in British society at least I can think of several groups who have historically come in and worked their way up, not least the branch of one group that eventually (2 generations later) gave rise to me!


May I ask about your ethnic origin? It will help me make sense of this statement, because if you're white then I don't get the point.

 
Quote
Anyway, we all know what you're doing Ghosty, googling about to support your own racist and anti-immigration views. Ask yourself one question Ghosty, how did you come to be born in the USA? Are you a native American? Or are you the child of immigrants? Is it possible that some of the immigrant community you are possibly from are less wonderful than yourself?


Most (but not all!;)) of my ancestry is European, of the Norman French/German/British variety. Now it's true that Europeans made life #### for Amerindians -- but that just proves my point. My Indian ancestors were too trusting, and look what happened!!!

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2006,05:40   

Ghosty,

My or my mother in law's ethnicity are not of any relevance. My mother in law is an immigrant to the UK as was my grandfather, it makes no difference if either of us are black, white, African, European, Asian, pink, or lilac. All that needs to be the case is if we are identifiable in some way (skin colour, accent, surname, religion etc etc) as being from an ethnic or national minority.

BTW she isn't as extreme as a KKK member, I was indulging in a bit of "my mother in law is so...." humourous hyperbole. She is however much more racist than the average Brit I encounter and also places far more significance on race.

As for what I would do if my approach to educating all people and allowing "nature" to take it's course with regards to equal representation in the workplace (for example) failed to work, difficult question. For example, (in my experience, I'd have to look this up to back it with anything more concrete) British people of my age/generation are, on average, more tolerant of those of a different race/nationality to themselves than people of my parent's age/generation. Laws about race discrimination came in well after I was born, however the social aspects of my education almost always centred on tolerance of diversity when it came to race.

Lastly, if for just one second you think that the major reason that Brits (and other Europeans) conquered America because the Native Americans were too trusting then you are out of your tiny mind....which granted we already knew. Factor in social factors, availability of technology etc etc and you'll get closer. Simple fact is that some cultures weren't so trusting when the Brits came to play. Didn't do 'em any good of course, we had guns and other such good stuff.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2006,11:38   

Louis:
         
Quote
Ghosty,

My or my mother in law's ethnicity are not of any relevance.


In other words, "We're both as white as a guy wearing black socks with his swimtrunks in a suburban back yard, ABBA playing softly in the background. But I was sorta hoping you wouldn't notice." Gotcha. So, what's the point of yer little anecdote? That white immigrants suceed in white countries? Not too surprising, that.

         
Quote
Lastly, if for just one second you think that the major reason that Brits (and other Europeans) conquered America because the Native Americans were too trusting then you are out of your tiny mind....which granted we already knew. Factor in social factors, availability of technology etc etc and you'll get closer. Simple fact is that some cultures weren't so trusting when the Brits came to play. Didn't do 'em any good of course, we had guns and other such good stuff.


Yes, I've also read Guns, Germs, and Steel. By the way, did you know that Jared Diamond once studied testicle size differences between white and asian men? We all know what he was hoping for, but, alas, whitey proved to be better hung, so he quickly whined for a comparison with West African males. Too bad the scientific community didn't fund this earth-shattering study. He coulda been somebody!  

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Ah, the liberal mind in action.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2006,22:05   

Ghosty,

Oops, you didn't "get me" at all. Like I said, what "race" my mother in law or I are (and they are different "races") is of no consequence. All that matters is that we can both be assumed to be foreign/immigrants based on easily obtainable "first impression" type information (e.g. accent, appearance, surname, skin colour, dress etc etc). The point was not that either of us are white or not, the point was that there are many means used to identify someone's "race", and that they are more varied than a decent tan! As it happens you certainly wouldn't class my mother in law as "white", and I got called a "Paki" regularly at school despite the fact that my origin (at least THAT side of my origins) are very far from the Indian subcontinent. The point is that we can identify someone's "race" in myriad ways, skin colour being only one of them.

After all would you expect a candidate for a job interview you were giving to be white or black if his/her name was Kofi Mbege? What if the name was C. Freeman? Or Magnus Thorson? Or Didier Poitier? What about Leslie Smith? Do you see my point yet? (Oh and it isn't that white immigrants succeed in white countries dumbass. Look at the trouble the Irish had in England and the US over a century ago).

Next, I wasn't getting my information from "Guns, Germs and Steel", I haven't read it (yes I know I should). People do have a wider reading list than you Ghosty, try it sometime. I also have no interest in how poor/good Diamond's work on testicle size was, nor your undoubtedly distorted view of things.

You seem to be constantly beating up strawmen of your own imagining Ghosty. Are there genetic and phenotypic differences between human "races"? Why yes there are, shock horror, roll around in amazement. And this means what precisely?

Tell me Ghosty, on average, is the genetic difference between two human "races" bigger or smaller than the genetic difference within those two same human "races"? Since I already know the answer to this Ghosty, I'll let you in on it. The difference within two human "races" is normally significantly bigger than between the same two human "races". What does that tell you?

Keep trawling aorund trying to justify your bigotry and bullshit Ghosty, and we'll just keep trying to honestly figure out the universe and use that knowledge to the betterment of as much as we can, as best we can.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2006,22:49   

P.S. Actually, I've had another thought regarding this. Ghosty, my bad, since you're clearly on the wind up, and nothing more than an inconsequential troll and/or moron (I am beginning to revise my charitable interpretation of piss-taking troll, to piss-taking, moronic troll), we'll leave it here thanks.

Take your racist ideologies and stuff them in the other thread (Paley Goes to the Movies) as that seems to be the best place for them. Rather than keep responding to you here, lets take it over there where other people can play with your ridiculous ideological nonsense more amusingly. Don't ever get the impression you are taken seriously Ghosty, because you're obviously a clueless fuckwit.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2006,04:58   

Louis:
         
Quote
Ghosty,

Oops, you didn't "get me" at all. Like I said, what "race" my mother in law or I are (and they are different "races") is of no consequence. All that matters is that we can both be assumed to be foreign/immigrants based on easily obtainable "first impression" type information (e.g. accent, appearance, surname, skin colour, dress etc etc).


But your refusal to identify your (and your mother in law's) race destroys the value of your anecdote. After all, my contention is that certain nationalities thrive in Western societies while others don't. Obviously, you're trying veeeeery hard to imply that you're a counterexample. So are you a counterexample or not? In other words, is a significant part of your ancestry not traceable to Indian, European, Jewish, or NE Asian heritage? If you are a counterexample, there's no reason to be coy about this. Why can't liberals answer the easiest questions?
         
Quote
Tell me Ghosty, on average, is the genetic difference between two human "races" bigger or smaller than the genetic difference within those two same human "races"? Since I already know the answer to this Ghosty, I'll let you in on it. The difference within two human "races" is normally significantly bigger than between the same two human "races". What does that tell you?

Louis, you big dummy, if you're going to preen about how well-read you are, then you shouldn't trash your reputation by trotting out this hoariest of liberal chestnuts. Yes, I'm well aware of this fact, because I've read my Lewontin, Gould, and Cavalli-Sforza too. But unlike you, I also read between the lines. And unfortunately for your side, so does Steve Sailer:
         
Quote
The New York Times has hailed Genes, Peoples, and Languages, the new book by Professor Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza[....], the dean of population geneticists, for "dismantling the idea of race." In the New York Review of Books, Jared Diamond salutes Cavalli-Sforza for "demolishing scientists' attempts to classify human populations into races in the same way that they classify birds and other species into races" [snip citation]
[...]
Don't believe any of this. It’s merely a politically-correct smoke screen that Cavalli-Sforza regularly pumps out to keep his life's work -- distinguishing the races of mankind and compiling their genealogies -- from being defunded by the leftist mystagogues at Stanford.
[...]
This is Cavalli-Sforza's description of the map that is the capstone of his half century of labor in human genetics:

"The color map of the world shows very distinctly the differences that we know exist among the continents: Africans (yellow), Caucasoids (green), Mongoloids … (purple), and Australian Aborigines (red). The map does not show well the strong Caucasoid component in northern Africa, but it does show the unity of the other Caucasoids from Europe, and in West, South, and much of Central Asia."

Basically, all his number-crunching has produced a map that looks about like what you'd get if you gave an unreconstructed Strom Thurmond a paper napkin and a box of crayons and had him draw a racial map of the world.


In fact, at the global level, Cavalli-Sforza has largely confirmed the prejudices of the more worldly 19th Century imperialists. Rudyard Kipling, Cecil Rhodes, and Francis Galton could have hunkered down together and whipped up something rather like this map in honor of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee.
[...]
Cavalli-Sforza's team compiled extraordinary tables depicting the "genetic distances" separating 2,000 different racial groups from each other. For example, assume the genetic distance between the English and the Danes is equal to 1.0. Then, Cavalli-Sforza has found, the separation between the English and the Italians would be about 2.5 times as large as the English-Danish difference. On this scale, the Iranians would be 9 times more distant genetically from the English than the Danes, and the Japanese 59 times. Finally, the gap between the English and the Bantus (the main group of sub-Saharan blacks) is 109 times as large as the distance between the English and the Danish. (The genetic distance between Japanese and Bantus is even greater.)

From these kind of tables, Cavalli-Sforza reached this general conclusion: "The most important difference in the human gene pool is clearly that between Africans and non-Africans …"
As you can imagine, this finding could get him in a bit of hot water if the campus thought police ever found out about it. So we should certainly forgive the charade he keeps up to fool the New York Times. But we definitely don't have to agree.

[my emphasis]


So I'm not going to start quaking when you display your vast command of population genetics. Flap your wings, little butterfly!

   
Quote
Take your racist ideologies and stuff them in the other thread (Paley Goes to the Movies) as that seems to be the best place for them. Rather than keep responding to you here, lets take it over there where other people can play with your ridiculous ideological nonsense more amusingly. Don't ever get the impression you are taken seriously Ghosty, because you're obviously a clueless fuckwit.

Ummmm....if you'd been paying attention, you would realise that I don't subscribe to "racist" ideologies. In fact, I just wrote a recent post refuting racial determinism. Ya oughtta read it, ya might learn a thing or two. But if you want to carry the "debate" (more like a one-sided drubbing of a limey trash-talker) over to the other thread, be my guest. I'd just as soon pummel you there as here. But do bring something to the table other than insults.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2006,07:17   

Bwaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha!

Google trawled bullshit from a conservative movie reviewer well known for deliberate confusing of genetics and racial issues to make a racist point? Oh Ghosty surely you can do better than that? Honestly, he doesn't even complete the quote. It's so obviously taken out of context that it is laughable.

Page 93, first sentence of section 2.5 (titled: Comparison with Archeological Data)

"The most important difference in the human gene pool is clearly that between Africans and non-Africans, correcting earlier conclusions. This suggests that the split between Africans and non-Africans was earliest in human evolutionary history, a suggestion subject to validation of the hypothesis that rates of evolution are constant. "

The chap in question is clearly talking about genetic differences that support various hypotheses about human evolution and migration (i.e. multiregional, out of Africa etc etc). Read the book fucknuts. Stevie's quote out of context and misuse of that quote is as dishonest as your use of it. And as erroneous. Nice try Ghosty. Do try again. What a laughable little goon you are.

Oh and by the way, I'm not debating with you here, you're not worth debating with. I'm merely poking you with a pointy stick to see what further bullshit you'll come out with.

As for my and my mother in law's ethnicity, the reason I'm being coy is because I don't give out too many personal details to fruitcakes on the internet (that would be you). However, if it helps you, I can confirm that neither my mother in law or I have any "racial" background from outside of Asia or Europe in the last 5 generations or so (as far as I am aware!;). You misunderstand the use of my anecdote. By the way Ghosty, I know full well that anecdotal evidecne is insufficient to establish anything, all I was doing was providing a counter example to your anecdotal claims. See?

And no I am not African and neither is my mother in law. Are you restricting your claims to African/black people then Ghosty? Oh dear, you are in for a rough ride.

Also stop attacking strawmen. I am not denying that humans have differences and that black people and white people (for instance) have genetic and phenotypic differences that can be broadly catagorised based on geographical population distribution. Find a different line of bullshit to tote. I love it when puerile little insignificances like yourself claim victory with no foundation. It amuses me.

Oh and as for bringing more than insults to the table, you do remember the orbital discussion don't you Ghosty? You do remember that your google trawling didn't serve you there either? Forgive me if I doubt you possess the wit or lack the cognitive dissonance to do so.

Louis

P.S. Race is a very loose and imprecise term in either sociology or anthropology/human biology. You're going to have your work cut out for you if you want to try to establish what you are clearly trying to establish. Remember Ghosty, I don't care WHAT the answer is, I just care HOW the answer is arrived at. I am perfectly open to the idea that black people are better than white people or vice versa, but the idea has to be supported by the evidence. It isn't. Except in limited senses where we prick about with the word "better", which to be honest I am not interested in bothering to do because it is futile nonsense. Like I said Ghosty, it's not the WHAT that matters, it's the HOW. If you could conclusively prove that white people were genetically superior in every way it STILL wouldn't make any difference. Ever hear of the "Is-Ought" fallacy?

--------------
Bye.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2006,07:29   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 25 2006,10:53)
Louis whines:
         
Quote
Was it I who advocated the beating of the mentally ill if engaged in offensive acts? Nope.

Good for you. Then again, neither was I. See my recent responses to Nine.
         
Quote
Was it I who repeatedly posted pics of muscley men and cartoon characters about smashing "evos" and "libruls"? Nope.

Wow, my pictures are really burning a hole into yer p-nut brain, ain't they? Maybe I should post a few more to keep you company during those long, lonely hours at the lab.


The middle guy (heh!;)) is pretty cute, isn't he? He's also a good fighter. The sport has some of the best athletes around, but since the "whitebreads" do a little too well, the MSM won't cover it even though the ratings are through the roof.

Lord, more of Paley's ridiculous tough guy nonsense? Photos of wrestlers, photos of boxers, cartoons of superheros beating people up... He seems to have some real, uh, masculinity issues here.

Paley, a hint: the tough guy routine doesn't work on an anonymous internet forum, especially when you're surrounded by your intellectual superiors. You just end up looking pathetic.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2006,09:25   

Louis:
         
Quote
Google trawled bullshit from a conservative movie reviewer well known for deliberate confusing of genetics and racial issues to make a racist point? Oh Ghosty surely you can do better than that? Honestly, he doesn't even complete the quote. It's so obviously taken out of context that it is laughable.


Did he? Let's see.

         
Quote
Page 93, first sentence of section 2.5 (titled: Comparison with Archeological Data)

"The most important difference in the human gene pool is clearly that between Africans and non-Africans, correcting earlier conclusions. This suggests that the split between Africans and non-Africans was earliest in human evolutionary history, a suggestion subject to validation of the hypothesis that rates of evolution are constant. "

The chap in question is clearly talking about genetic differences that support various hypotheses about human evolution and migration (i.e. multiregional, out of Africa etc etc). Read the book fucknuts. Stevie's quote out of context and misuse of that quote is as dishonest as your use of it. And as erroneous. Nice try Ghosty. Do try again. What a laughable little goon you are.


Apparently, a goon with better reading comprehension skills than you. Let me help you out by re-quoting this bit:
         
Quote
This suggests that the split between Africans and non-Africans was earliest in human evolutionary history


Now let me show you a purty picture.

Study the little tree real hard. Notice it has two main branches. How do the authors label the branches? Would this primary branching indicate a primary difference, or not?
Here's a passage to help you out:
       
Quote
The most dramatic characteristic of the tree is the division between populations in sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of humanity. This is usually interpreted to mean that modern humans originated in Africa and that the population from which the rest of humanity descended left Africa somewhat less than 300,000 years ago, ultimately replacing earlier humans, like the Pithecanthropines (Homo erectus, like Peking Man, etc.), who had also evolved in Africa but left many thousands of years earlier.

[my emp]


Louis continues:
     
Quote
Oh and by the way, I'm not debating with you here, you're not worth debating with. I'm merely poking you with a pointy stick to see what further bullshit you'll come out with.


Whatever.

     
Quote
Also stop attacking strawmen. I am not denying that humans have differences and that black people and white people (for instance) have genetic and phenotypic differences that can be broadly catagorised based on geographical population distribution. Find a different line of bullshit to tote. I love it when puerile little insignificances like yourself claim victory with no foundation. It amuses me.


"Black people and white people (for instance) have genetic and phenotypic differences that can be broadly catagorised based on geographical population distribution."  I think the word you're looking for is race. Goodness, so much nervous doubletalk to obscure a relatively easy concept. Face the fact: the old way of classifying human subgroups is validated by the molecules. The liberal "race has no meaning mantra" has been falsified in a very dramatic way. Seems like you're the one strainin' to do some splainin', not me.

     
Quote

P.S. Race is a very loose and imprecise term in either sociology or anthropology/human biology.


Not according to the molecules.

     
Quote

You're going to have your work cut out for you if you want to try to establish what you are clearly trying to establish. Remember Ghosty, I don't care WHAT the answer is, I just care HOW the answer is arrived at. I am perfectly open to the idea that black people are better than white people or vice versa, but the idea has to be supported by the evidence. It isn't. Except in limited senses where we prick about with the word "better", which to be honest I am not interested in bothering to do because it is futile nonsense. Like I said Ghosty, it's not the WHAT that matters, it's the HOW. If you could conclusively prove that white people were genetically superior in every way it STILL wouldn't make any difference. Ever hear of the "Is-Ought" fallacy?


Now the liberal fear emerges: if human races exist, then so may differences between them. So let's pretend race is a meaningless concept. Except it isn't. Crime labs use the concept of DNA profiling to nab suspects. Medical researchers know that racial groups react differently to medications, and redesign treatment groups to accomodate this fact. Epidemiologists find racial categories useful. It all goes back to what Lawrence Auster calls the unprincipled exception:

   
Quote
The unprincipled exception is a non-liberal value or assertion, not explicitly identified as non-liberal, that liberals use to escape the suicidal consequences of their own liberalism, without questioning liberalism itself.

Alternatively, the unprincipled exception is a non-liberal value or assertion, not explicitly identified as non-liberal, that conservatives use to stave off the advance of liberalism, without opposing liberalism itself.

Explanation:

Modern liberalism stands for principles of equality and non-discrimination which, if followed consistently, would make a decent life in this world, or any life at all, impossible. But modern liberal society does not permit the public expression of non-liberal principles, by which rational limits to equality and non-discrimination, or indeed the very falsity of these ideas altogether, can be articulated. This fact forces liberals continually to make exceptions to their own liberalism, without admitting to themselves and others that they are doing so. Such exceptions must take inchoate, non-conceptual, pre-rational forms, such as appeals to brute self-interest or to common sense. As an example of such a “common sense” UE, a liberal who wants to escape from the negative consequences of his liberal beliefs in a given instance will say that a certain liberal idea “goes too far,” without his indicating by what principle he distinguishes between an idea that has gone “too far” and one that hasn’t. In fact, it’s purely a matter of what suits his own convenience and comfort level.

[my emp]


But the liberal is so afraid of race ('cept when he's demonising whitey) that he'd rather block medical progress than fess up to an incovenient fact. Sad, really.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2006,11:03   

Well you sure got us pegged. I for one am so committed to my Liberalism that I'm compelled to take your caricatures at face value and incorporate them into my belief system.

Except that you're white too, so you're probably evil!

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2006,11:25   

Quote
I think the word you're looking for is race. Goodness, so much nervous doubletalk to obscure a relatively easy concept.


"Race" is an *easy* topic, Shitforbrains? Really? What race is a San tribesman? How about a typical Madagascar native resident? How about Suomi? At what point do we term a person African, European or "mixed race?" Are the Lemba Semitic Caucasians, African or both? The Beta Israel of Ethiopia were termed "official" Jews by Israel yet the genetics shows that the Lemba, deep in South Africa have a greater degree of relatedness to the Kohanim. What are they, then? If  Maori males show genetic relatedness to southeast asia, what "race" are they? Dravidians? Most residents of Bahia, in South America? Pakistanis? Cossacks of Zaporizhia?

Tell me what number of genetic markers you consider to be capable of determining "race" for each group you consider to be a "race." Specify each one, please. Now apply those markers to each case I cited. Fucking idiot.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2006,13:06   

Quote (Ved @ Aug. 02 2006,16:03)
Well you sure got us pegged. I for one am so committed to my Liberalism that I'm compelled to take your caricatures at face value and incorporate them into my belief system.

Better start reading Foucault and move to an all-white neighborhood! You've got a lot of catching up to do!

(Better do it quick, Paley might post another one of his photos of sweaty, oily, half-naked boxers.)

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2006,22:34   

Ghosty,

Once again, the point is over here...



....you are a speck in the distance.

Like I said above I would have no problem with the concept of race as you wish to use it IF it were valid as you wish to use it. I couldn't care less if whites are genetically "superior" to blacks or whatever, it's a total irrelevance. You might as well say Daschund are genetically "superior" to Great Danes. Sure in a stand up fight the Great Dane will most likely win, but try getting one down a rabbit hole. Again, like I said above, the "superior" one upmanship game you are trying to play rests on what you are considering to be "superior" NOT on the organism. Are gibbons superior to humans? How about sharks? So you see the point? Forgive me if I doubt it.

The full quote from the book, and the context it's in, CLEARLY (to anyone with the reading comprehension of a five year old) makes the point that the author is talking about molecular confirmation of migratory and evolutionary models supported by fossil evidence, NOT racial superiority. More significant genetic difference does not mean that one is "superior" to the other, unless one defines the environment in which that "superiority" is expressed very rigourously. Also, the size of that difference (i.e. its overall significance) has to be addressed, which I notice you conveniently ignore.

You can quote mine and blather all you like, but your claims don't stack up. Your strawmen aside NOBODY is denying that genetic profiling based on geographical distribution is a useful tool. NOBODY is denying that the genetic differences between human groups (or races if you like, here it has some validity at least) have demonstrable effects (epidemiology etc etc). These racial genetic differences are useful because there hasn't been complete mixing of the human genome. And this STILL misses the KEY POINT of the limitation of these uses that the genetic differences WITHIN any two races you choose are greater than the genetic differences between those same two races. That is part of the limitation of the usefulness of these differences. The other being, of course, that most of the usefulness of these differences is due to certain key markers (e.g. the marker for Tay-Sachs disease or sickle cell anemia in certain racial populations).

Thalassemia is a good example of this. If you found the genetic marker for thalassemia in a blood sample of a criminal what does it tell you? Well, we know that the approximate prevalence is 16% in people from Cyprus, 3-14 % in Thailand, and 3-8 % in populations from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and China. A lower prevalence has been reported from black people in Africa (0.9%) and northern Europe (0.1%). So immediately you have a good chance that your criminal is Cypriot or Thai. You would have to use OTHER evidence as well to narrow it down, because this racial profile based on one locus doesn't tell you if the suspect is Mediterranean, Thai, Oriental, Indian, Black or White!

Herein lies the point again, since you seem to be hard of thinking: the fact that there are greater genetic differences when we consider the genome as a whole WITHIN two races than BETWEEN those same two races, negates the blanket usefulness of the genetic determination of "race". The definition is useful in specific circumstances and cases, but NOT in the borad sweeping manner you wish it to be and are using it. You are trying to use a forklift truck to do formula 1 racing. The tool you are using is inappropriate for the job you are trying to put it to. That doesn't mean it is 100% useless in every situation.

Louis

P.S. Is anyone else tiring of Ghosty's dishonesty? AFDave jumped the shark a while ago, Ghosty definitely has leap cleanly over the Selachimorphan from day two, the only participant we have left that isn't revving his motorcycle is Skeptic (don't you agree?) although he is looking wistfully towards his hog!

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,03:32   

I don't ski anymore and I long ago gave up any thoughts of getting on anything with only two wheels.  Besides, my leather jacket hasn't fit in years.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,04:22   

Skeptic,

I am glad to find you suitably averse to shark jumpage!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,07:15   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 02 2006,19:06)
 
Quote (Ved @ Aug. 02 2006,16:03)
Well you sure got us pegged. I for one am so committed to my Liberalism that I'm compelled to take your caricatures at face value and incorporate them into my belief system.

Better start reading Foucault and move to an all-white neighborhood! You've got a lot of catching up to do!

(Better do it quick, Paley might post another one of his photos of sweaty, oily, half-naked boxers.)

Eh, why read faux Coult when we have the real thing currently pumping out books?

Seriously though, I'd never heard of Foucault till I got here. Chalk that up to my lack of higher education, I suppose. No philosophy courses for me...

Does my playing in a black metal band (for lack of better term) make up in any way for my lack of knowledge of the dude? I've been told we play the evillest Prague rock ever!

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,08:58   

Mutt and Jeff:
 
Quote
Tell me what number of genetic markers you consider to be capable of determining "race" for each group you consider to be a "race." Specify each one, please. Now apply those markers to each case I cited. Fucking idiot.

But you don't know? Tsk-tsk....should keep up with your molecular biology. C. Wu claims that at least 5 genes are needed for a molecular phylogeny. As for what particular analysis is proper, might I suggest comparing phylogenetic trees derived from whole mtDNA (or at least a random sample of sequences from different regions), and then compare it to trees derived from y-chromosome haplogroups. I predict that the trees will match with a high level of significance (p<.001, both for the classic and Bayesian posterior probability). What is your prediction, Nine?

 
Quote
The full quote from the book, and the context it's in, CLEARLY (to anyone with the reading comprehension of a five year old) makes the point that the author is talking about molecular confirmation of migratory and evolutionary models supported by fossil evidence, NOT racial superiority. More significant genetic difference does not mean that one is "superior" to the other, unless one defines the environment in which that "superiority" is expressed very rigourously. Also, the size of that difference (i.e. its overall significance) has to be addressed, which I notice you conveniently ignore.

Louis, remove the beam from thine own eye. Neither Sailer nor I are interested in ranking the inherent "worth" of racial groups, and nothing we've said could have made a rational person think otherwise. What I did say -- and what you inadvertently confirmed -- was that humans can be grouped objectively into "races", and that liberals try to deny this because they're afraid of that this will lead to discoveries of racial differences in mental ability. If you guys would perform the molecular work yourselves instead of diddling black men's willies on the public dime, you would realise what the rest of the world knows: that different races exist and can be studied to everyone's benefit. I've already mentioned several applications, and that's just the tip o' the iceberg.
Quote
You can quote mine and blather all you like, but your claims don't stack up. Your strawmen aside NOBODY is denying that genetic profiling based on geographical distribution is a useful tool. NOBODY is denying that the genetic differences between human groups (or races if you like, here it has some validity at least) have demonstrable effects (epidemiology etc etc). These racial genetic differences are useful because there hasn't been complete mixing of the human genome. And this STILL misses the KEY POINT of the limitation of these uses that the genetic differences WITHIN any two races you choose are greater than the genetic differences between those same two races. That is part of the limitation of the usefulness of these differences. The other being, of course, that most of the usefulness of these differences is due to certain key markers (e.g. the marker for Tay-Sachs disease or sickle cell anemia in certain racial populations).

But many, if not most, liberals do claim that the races are unclassifiable "abstractions". Of course, this claim doesn't even make sense on a Darwinian level: Erasmus himself would have predicted a branching tree for human subgroups, because a nested hierarchy results from a common ancestor splitting into multiple descendents. But liberals, who worship Comrade Darwin and racial categories when it's time to wreck Christianity or empty the white man's wallet, suddenly become creationists on the Race Issue. They confuse gene segregation with phylogeny, compare single genes, and other bad stuff.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,09:10   

Quote
But many, if not most, liberals do claim that the races are unclassifiable "abstractions". Of course, this claim doesn't even make sense on a Darwinian level: Erasmus himself would have predicted a branching tree for human subgroups, because a nested hierarchy results from a common ancestor splitting into multiple descendents. But liberals, who worship Comrade Darwin and racial categories when it's time to wreck Christianity or empty the white man's wallet, suddenly become creationists on the Race Issue.

Not atypically, this accusation is partially correct, and partially misleading. Yes, there are genetic differences among people. Yes, some of these genetic differences are associated with clear enough visual cues (and geographical ancestry) to serve as useful differentiators between genetically distinct groups. Sometimes, this is very helpful (for example in making some medical diagnoses or therapies). I doubt even a "Ghost liberal" (not a real creature, but a simplistic enough caricature for us to grasp) would claim that, by and large black people aren't visibly blacker than white people.

So the question here is, should these systemic genetic groupings translate into legal or political distinctions? Should identifiable phylogenetic groups be denied civil rights? If so, which rights? Should we assume that there is One True God, who regards these groups with differing degrees of favor? Should we use these groupings as a basis for setting discriminatory immigration quotas, or designing different educational curricula, or designating seating locations on buses?

Is the "liberal" determination to *pretend* that these separate groups are physiologically similar enough to be treated as legal and political equals, in practice perverse and wrongheaded because the groups are so physically different? Would a "separate and not equal" dual (or more) political and legal system (including different legal rights, different access to services, different educations, different hiring and training opportunities, ad nauseum) be a BETTER FIT considering these genuine genetic groupings?

Clearly, Ghost thinks so, and the hated liberals want to go on pretending they're all human.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,09:35   

Flint:
Quote
Is the "liberal" determination to *pretend* that these separate groups are physiologically similar enough to be treated as legal and political equals, in practice perverse and wrongheaded because the groups are so physically different? Would a "separate and not equal" dual (or more) political and legal system (including different legal rights, different access to services, different educations, different hiring and training opportunities, ad nauseum) be a BETTER FIT considering these genuine genetic groupings?

Clearly, Ghost thinks so, and the hated liberals want to go on pretending they're all human.


Flint, I warned you about lying about my politics. You know #### well that I believe in equal civil rights for all American citizens, and that I despise any form of "race law". The existence of racial categories in no way implies different treatment under the law, and only an imbecile would believe otherwise. What's funny about your smear campaign is that you, not I, once opined that "Black people wreck every nation they become part of" (This quote may not be exact, but it is not a misrepresentation of what you said). You were the one who told anecdotes about black employees not working when the boss's back was turned. So get off your high horse and address my arguments.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,10:13   

Ghost:

Quote
The existence of racial categories in no way implies different treatment under the law, and only an imbecile would believe otherwise.

Uh, I trust you understand that varying immigration quotas are precisely "different treatment under the law." Perhaps I misunderstood you? You SEEMED to be saying you favored this form of legal discrimination.

Quote
You were the one who told anecdotes about black employees not working when the boss's back was turned.

Yes, those stories were true. But perhaps you and I would draw different conclusions from them. My question is, would any visibly distinct group with the history blacks have in the US, right up to the present day, behave differently? Differently how? How much of this spite-the-man mentality is racial, how much is cultural or historical, how much is due to (problematic) congenital stupidity?

Anyway, I'm trying to address your arguments, even if you don't like how they look reflected back at you. I've agreed that there are genetic differences. I agreed that we can make these groupings objectively (that is, double-blind processes would produce them). I even agreed that recognizing these groupings is occasionally critical, even life-saving. What are you asking for now?

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,11:00   

Gop--I asked this:  
Quote
Tell me what number of genetic markers you consider to be capable of determining "race" for each group you consider to be a "race." Specify each one, please. Now apply those markers to each case I cited. Fucking idiot.


Notice that I asked you to be specific. You reply:  
Quote
might I suggest comparing phylogenetic trees derived from whole mtDNA (or at least a random sample of sequences from different regions), and then compare it to trees derived from y-chromosome haplogroups. I predict that the trees will match with a high level of significance (p<.001, both for the classic and Bayesian posterior probability). What is your prediction, Nine?


Since you asked what my prediction is, I'll tell you straightaway-- My predictions are these:
1. You're going to have to work much harder than this, GoP. I realize that you have a great deal of time on your hands and that you have a computer at your local library that you can use, but in order to do what I asked, you're going to have to be capable of a bit more than spewing out jargon like an glossolalic idiot savant.

2. I predict that if I hand **you** a vial of blood from three of the subjects I mentioned (Cossack, Pakistani, and Bahian) you will not be able to tell me anything, personally, about the "race" of the subjects in a double-blind test.

This would be for several reasons, chief among them (A)that you, personally, would be absolutely lost as to the details of extraction, amplification and comparison, etc.
(B) The groups I mentioned don't classify as easily as you blithely assume, O Google scholar. As you described above, in your google-derived delusion, you assume that you're going to be able to take the entire MtDna sequence from each sample, "construct a phylogenetic tree" from that sample..(details?) and then compare that to a database of Y-chromosome haplogroups and arrive at a match that fits to within p<.001...

What exactly will this tell me about race? It will match for continent-wide geographic origins, as Louis noted earlier. It is also in fact, a forced-fit comparison, since you are suggesting only that I look for the best match between Mt-Dna and YCh Trees (using what programs and markers? Specifics!!;). Let's take the Cossack case..I will be able to tell *what* about the "race" of the individual?  

Now, O Google Scholar, I want you to use the very best Mt and Y databases available and tell me...what are the probabilities that you will be wrong in your phylogenetic matches concerning the "Race" of each of the three subjects I mentioned? Be specific and cite how you are calculating these probabilities. Cite all relevant details, GoP, don't just google and give me broad generalities. I predicted you'd have to work harder than you have, GoP, and I also predict that you will fail in being specific about those three particular groups and hypothetical blind samples.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,11:18   

GoP says :
Quote
I despise any form of "race law".


But you just suggested, not long ago, laws determining who should be allowed in the US based on "race" and geographic origins, GoP...which is it?

Is it that you prescribe racial profiling for *entrance * and US citizenship?...why, yes, you did.

But once IN, they should be exempt from "race law?"

Ah, the scent of "conservative" hypocrisy once again wafts from the malodorous GoP

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,17:33   

Louis, you know it's Shark Week on Discovery.  Those big suckers scare the bee-jeesus out of me.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,20:57   

Hey Skeptic;

did you know that I used to work with those big suckers that scare the bejesus out of you?

yup.

In fact it's possible that they showed vids of the very sharks i used to work with, and the researchers too.  If they showed any footage from Monterey, or near Santa Cruz, or from the Farallon Islands, that would have been the sharks I worked with.  If they showed Sean Van Sommeran at all (they do about every other shark week), or Bernie Lebouff, or Pete Klimly, or Greg Cailliet, those were the guys I used to work with.  Likely they spent most of the time showing white shark footage from South Africa though.

Now, here's an analogy for you:

based on your thread on evolutionary theory, I expect you will elucidate a theory on white shark migration and hunting behaviors that far exceeds my pathetic level of detail, having only studied the critters for 4 years.  Tell me how it's done, son.

or, if you were actually interested in Carcharadon carcharias, you could actually ask questions; that would be new and unexpected.

and uh, *ugh*, i guess i should apologize to gawp for going so off topic on his tightly woven thread...

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,00:22   

Skeptic,

Then surely what better way to avoid those big scary suckers than by jumping a tankful on a large motorbike? Or at least jumping a fake one used as a sign (if I remember my Happy Days correctly) on a large motorbike whilst wearing a newly resized leather jacket and some sun glasses and saying "Eyyyyyyyyyyyy".

The girls would love it. You jump that shark Skeptic!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,03:10   

Ichy, the nearest I've come is by accidentally sitting on the back of a ten foot bull shark of the south coast of Jamaica.  I never intend to be any closer and my detailed knowledge of whites runs out where Discovery channel leaves off.  Sorry to disappoint you.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,05:35   

Funny that the subject of shark-jumping came up, as it's time to reply to the Ninester....
 
Quote
Since you asked what my prediction is, I'll tell you straightaway-- My predictions are these:
1. You're going to have to work much harder than this, GoP. I realize that you have a great deal of time on your hands and that you have a computer at your local library that you can use, but in order to do what I asked, you're going to have to be capable of a bit more than spewing out jargon like an glossolalic idiot savant.

Hmmmm....doesn't sound like a very scienmetifical prediction to me, but I'll let my "betters" make that call. By the way, Hoss, I think the concept yer groping for is "Williams Syndrome". You should try a library every once in a while, they really improve your skills.  :D  :D
 
Quote
2. I predict that if I hand **you** a vial of blood from three of the subjects I mentioned (Cossack, Pakistani, and Bahian) you will not be able to tell me anything, personally, about the "race" of the subjects in a double-blind test.

Oh dear, you're confusing molecualr phylogenies with DNA profiling. And oh yeah, racial clines do not refute racial classification any more than the concept of "ring species" and "mules" refutes the biological concept of species. Nice try, though.
 
Quote
This would be for several reasons, chief among them (A)that you, personally, would be absolutely lost as to the details of extraction, amplification and comparison, etc.
(B) The groups I mentioned don't classify as easily as you blithely assume, O Google scholar. As you described above, in your google-derived delusion, you assume that you're going to be able to take the entire MtDna sequence from each sample, "construct a phylogenetic tree" from that sample..(details?) and then compare that to a database of Y-chromosome haplogroups and arrive at a match that fits to within p<.001...

Ummmm Nine, molecular phylogenies can't be constructed from a single individual, and even one built on three subjects will get you tossed headfirst from scientific conferences. For details, consult the scientific literature....
 
Quote
What exactly will this tell me about race? It will match for continent-wide geographic origins, as Louis noted earlier. It is also in fact, a forced-fit comparison, since you are suggesting only that I look for the best match between Mt-Dna and YCh Trees (using what programs and markers? Specifics!!. Let's take the Cossack case..I will be able to tell *what* about the "race" of the individual?  

Wow, guys, can anyone get Brazeau or somebody to help this guy out? He's really scuffling here. But I'll supply a couple of references later to get him started....
 
Quote
Now, O Google Scholar, I want you to use the very best Mt and Y databases available and tell me...what are the probabilities that you will be wrong in your phylogenetic matches concerning the "Race" of each of the three subjects I mentioned? Be specific and cite how you are calculating these probabilities. Cite all relevant details, GoP, don't just google and give me broad generalities. I predicted you'd have to work harder than you have, GoP, and I also predict that you will fail in being specific about those three particular groups and hypothetical blind samples.

If you're wondering why I'm being so flippant, it's because you keep saying stupid things like this. I don't need to calculate the relevant probabilities, it's already been done. And yes, if you click on the link you will see the precise formula and references that outline the statistical concepts. And no, the concept doesn't involve "forcing" a best fit as you seem to believe. And oh, could you and Jeff please explain why the putative 10% between-group differences help your side? The FST values are right in line with racial differences; or are you going to start complaining about Analysis of Variance techniques now?

Hey, you guys really need to bring in someone like Theobald or Brazeau.....I'm bored with this guy already...........

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,06:18   

Order of occurence:
1. Louis states clearly: "Race is a very loose and imprecise term in either sociology or anthropology/human biology." and "Black people and white people (for instance) have genetic and phenotypic differences that can be broadly catagorised based on geographical population distribution."  

2. GoP says " not according to the molecules" and "I think the word you're looking for is race. Goodness, so much nervous doubletalk to obscure a relatively easy concept." While mentioning FBI DNA profiles and epidemiologics, where "racial categories [are] useful"  


BECAUSE you claimed race was a simple concept, GoP, I asked some you simple questions about race :  
Quote
Tell me what number of genetic markers you consider to be capable of determining "race" for each group you consider to be a "race." Specify each one, please. Now apply those markers to each case I cited. Fucking idiot


Your response was on phylogenies. Now..you're saying I conflated the concepts? Your reply was:
Quote
might I suggest comparing phylogenetic trees derived from whole mtDNA (or at least a random sample of sequences from different regions), and then compare it to trees derived from y-chromosome haplogroups. I predict that the trees will match with a high level of significance (p<.001, both for the classic and Bayesian posterior probability). What is your prediction, Nine?


Now...you're  saying that
Quote
Oh dear, you're confusing molecualr phylogenies with DNA profiling. And oh yeah, racial clines do not refute racial classification


Did I ask for a phylogeny, stupid? No. Human "races" are all human -- I asked about race...because you said race was a "simple concept." And it is not -- as you've discovered -- hence your diversion off to phylogenies that have nothing to do with your ORIGINAL CLAIM and MY original response. Your whole act is based on slightly more disguised versions of the diversion, distraction, shift-the-goalpost, avoid the topic tactics of AirHead.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,06:49   

Nine:
 
Quote
BECAUSE you claimed race was a simple concept, GoP, I asked some you simple questions about race : [snip]


OK, I must leave in a half hour, and I might be gone for a couple of days, so I'll have to let you guys have yer way with me (be gentle, sweet Louis!;))

1) I still think the vast majority of people can be easily classified into clear-cut racial categories, and the tough cases are tough precisely because the races have interbred (and no, I don't think this is bad, wise guys).

2) However complex the scientific distinctions are, most people do not find the concept useless or difficult. In fact, science has validated people's gut impressions.

That is all.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,17:31   

Wow, GoP this stuff is pretty dry.  I think you guys would have a lot more fun if you just stuck to sharks.  I mean you got blues, whites, grays, black-tips, white-tips, lemons (still a color, right) and I'm sure a few more that I can't think of off the top of my head.  I'm sure there's enough genetic diversity there to make classification easy.  Just a suggestion...

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,21:50   

IOW, skeptic says:

"I ain't got no clue what ya all is a spoutin', but I think sharks is the coolest!"

airhead.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2006,03:18   

I guess satire doesn't come through well in print.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2006,08:21   

no, it came through just fine.

It was indeed satire worthy of an airhead.

I guess you missed why I used the word "analogy" when I asked you for your theory on shark behavior, as well.

Your knowledge of the ToE goes no farther than the discovery channel either, yet you feel more than free to expound ridiculous notions on that front.  why not sharks too?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Dean Morrison



Posts: 216
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2006,22:49   

Don't tell me that the dreadful Old Whiter Shade of Paley is stil trying to deny he's a racist?

He was rumbled a year ago -

- you're a racist GOP, and no amount of wriggling is going to change the fact - live with it.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2006,07:35   

Dean:

You need to at least make an effort. Here's a Q&A for you that might get you started.

Q: Are there systematic, identifiable genetic differences between races?
A: Yes, given a good deal of blending. But a geneticist given samples taken from inner-city blacks and affluent white suburbians could easily, consistently tell the difference.

Q: Do these systematic differences correlate with IQ test scores and demonstrated capacity to assimilate into the national culture?
A: Yes, they do. No question about it.

Q: Might these differences in genetics *explain* the differences in test scores and assimilation?
A: Yes, there's a very good chance of this.

Q: Should there be ANY social policies which recognize these differences?
A: Good question. We have had affirmative action policies for decades, which are based directly on these differences.

Q: Are these policies therefore racist?
A: No question about it. Their goal is to *correct for* racism, and you can't target racism without being racist. These policies are *deliberately discriminatory*.

Q: Aren't racially discriminatory laws a bad idea?
A: This seems to depend on intent and locution. If a law claims the intent of assisting group A, it's a good law. If the law claims the intent of punishing group B, it's a bad law. Even if the actual legal requirements are identical!

Q: So should we have ANY laws that draw racial distinctions in order to grant or deny privileges along racial lines?
A: Depends on who you are. Ghost says no, the law should be color-blind. You seem to say yes, *provided* the goal has "good intent".

Personally, I gotta admit Ghost has a point here. Either we legislate racial differences or we don't. The notion that legislation benefiting race A by handicapping group B is "not racist" is prima facie false.

What you are doing is championing "good racism" so avidly that someone who advocates no racism becomes a racist by comparison.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2006,06:42   

Flint:

To answer your question I would not let white people from Zimbabwe immigrate. I would treat them like other political dissidents and refugees (more later). This may seem strange, but their culture is really not our culture, and I think it would be a bad fit. Have you read Alexandra Fuller's autobiography? Their culture has diverged too much IMO. Besides, rules is rules.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2006,08:00   

I'd also like to address some other issues:

1) Is the PaleyPlan predictive?

Some people assert that the PaleyPlan can not identify successful immigrants ahead of time. The plan merely assumes that all "nonwhite" immigrants are incompatible, and as counterexamples pour in, it eqivocates on its definition of "compatibility" to escape falsification. A logically consistent application of the plan would rule out NE Asians, for example.

This charge is false for one simple reason: NE Asians, Jews, and even Indians have proven their cultural chops by shaping Western civilisation in the first place! To claim that they are "nonWestern" because they speak different languages, have different alphabets, etc. is ignoring the underlying connection between these societies and Europe. The Jews, Indians, and NE Asians have contributed great literature, science, and art to West, and share core cultural values such as self-denial, hard work, and economic independence. This is not to imply that nonWesterners do not have these values; many do, but it's all a matter of degree. The idea that others are responsible for one's success is found in great abundance in African and Muslim societies; that's why terrorism and genocide flourish in these areas. Blaming the Jew, blaming the Tutsi, blaming the colonialists -- it's all so much easier than simply taking charge of your own life. Simply look how these societies perform. Their utter failure to compete, or even achieve self-sufficiency, makes the point better than I do. And yet we're to assume that a change of location will erase this mindset, despite the overwhelming evidence that cultural mores are extremely hard to change (for the latest example, see Bush in Iraq).

2)Does the existence of race imply important racial differences?

To a Darwinist it must, because a geographic and chronological isolation of sufficient magnitude to produce differences in skin color, hair texture, and nose shape might also have time to create intellectual and temperamental differences, because the differential selective pressures don't stop at the body. How could they? In fact, recent genetic research indicates that, under the evolutionary timetable, natural selection did have enough time to craft different brains. So how in the world can a Darwinist assume that the brains of geographically separate groups, inhabiting different climates and enjoying different economic and technical achievements, would evolve in precise lockstep for over a 75000 years (to use the most optimistic example)? If anything, the presumption should be that the groups are different. Only a YEC can assume equal minds and personality types among the different races.

I challenge a Darwinist to prove otherwise. Only Flint is honest enough to concede the logical consequences of Darwinian philosophy.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2006,08:26   

Ghost:

Well, don't take your eye too far off the ball.

Yes, having had immigrants from basically every nationality in the world (including some recently created nations, and some from nations no longer around), we can pretty well go down the list seeing how each of them performed, on average. And if their average performance was no worse than average for the population as a whole, we (armed with deadly-accurate hindsight) can evaluate their cultures to discover what must have been good about it.

And *knowing it's there*, we're sure to find it. The PaleyPlan is most wonderfully postdictive. There are no more unknown nationalities to use as controls.

Quote
Does the existence of race imply important racial differences?

But of course, this was not the question. The question was, do real, double-blind obvious racial differences ipso facto justify discriminatory policies?

Let's posit for the sake of discussion that black Africans are stupid, the stupidity is dominant, no amount of cross-breeding will alleviate this, and that as a whole (with of course plenty of individual exceptions intellectually, culturally, and every which way) they'll just never fit in. OK, fine. Now, should they be *allowed* in anyway?

In any case, we're going around in circles again. I also favor discriminatory policies, but I would apply them retail rather than wholesale. As I wrote earlier, you know the rules, work within them or leave. Culture can be changed in a single generation; culture is not biology.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2006,09:02   

Flint:
   
Quote
And *knowing it's there*, we're sure to find it. The PaleyPlan is most wonderfully postdictive. There are no more unknown nationalities to use as controls.


Two things:

1) So what if my plan doesn't meet the technical requirements of a scientific theory? It works, and really, that's all that counts.

2) I assert that claim 1) is wrong. I predicted that the Caribbean immigrants to the UK and Canada would regress to their cultural mean, and they have. Look at recent news stories: many post-date my first post in this thread. The fact that we don't have untried immigrant groups is unfortunate, but the point is my plan can predict which immigrant groups among the current nationalities will rise to the top in any Western society. Future prediction: the African immigrants in Australia will fall below the mean performance of the SE Asian immigrants, and create a high-crime underclass within one generation. What is the liberal prediction? Don't tell me: first they'll predict success, and then blame white Australian "institutional racism" when the inevitable occurs, and call for even more speech codes and quotas. Just watch.

Also: you keep saying, "Let 'em in and let 'em succeed or fail on their own merits." But this won't happen, because:

1) Western morality won't permit massive failure among identifiable ethnic groups (nor should it; I'm not a fan of digging mass graves for the "losers")

2) As more immigrants flood in, they begin to rig the cultural and political landscape so that Western cultural values don't apply.

 
Quote
Let's posit for the sake of discussion that black Africans are stupid, the stupidity is dominant, no amount of cross-breeding will alleviate this, and that as a whole (with of course plenty of individual exceptions intellectually, culturally, and every which way) they'll just never fit in. OK, fine. Now, should they be *allowed* in anyway?


<sigh> You won't give this up, will you? OK, assuming these "facts" for the "sake of discussion", #### no they shouldn't be let in. Is this a trick question?

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2006,10:36   

Ghost:

I was just making sure I understood your position. I think I can accurately characterize it as follows:

We know the track records of certain cultures, which are uniformly abysmal in their native lands and everywhere else they have settled. Yes, individuals occasionally break free of this sorry trend, but not many and the trend doesn't vary anywhere.

It is not in the interest of the US or indeed any other nation to invite or permit sizeable numbers of immigrants from "proven failure" cultures. Even filtering these populations and approving only the very cream of the accomplished will be shown a failure after two generations.


Is that it, more or less?

Personally, I'd have gladly embraced the displaced Rhodesians, who had a demonstrated culture among themselves of education, dedication, hard work, foresight and planning.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2006,10:29   

Flint:
     
Quote
Ghost:

I was just making sure I understood your position. I think I can accurately characterize it as follows:

We know the track records of certain cultures, which are uniformly abysmal in their native lands and everywhere else they have settled. Yes, individuals occasionally break free of this sorry trend, but not many and the trend doesn't vary anywhere.

It is not in the interest of the US or indeed any other nation to invite or permit sizeable numbers of immigrants from "proven failure" cultures. Even filtering these populations and approving only the very cream of the accomplished will be shown a failure after two generations.

Is that it, more or less?


Yes, that's it. So now that at least one person understands my position, the debate can actually move forward. And while we're at it, here's a report on the excitement and diversity Swedish and Norwegian immigrants provide:
     
Quote
There has been a spike in the number of rape charges in Scandinavia in recent years. It has reached near epidemic proportions in Sweden. Although there are indications of a very high percentage of Muslim immigrants on the statistics, as it is with other kinds of crime, immigration is a non-issue for the political establishment a few weeks ahead of the Swedish national elections.

In neighboring Norway, there is an unprecedented rape wave in the capital city of Oslo.
“We have to be realistic. A series of rapes have made Oslo unsafe during the summer,” says Brit Opjordsmoen from DIXI, support centre for rape victims. “When we know that there are rapists on the loose in Oslo, we have to listen to advice from the police. They are right in warning women against going home alone at night.”

Opjordsmoen thinks it is astounding that Minister of Justice Knut Storberget gives advice contrary to that of the police, encouraging women not to change their behavior. “Ideally, we can all agree that girls should be able to move around freely, but we have to be realistic. Society is not like that. Many girls are too naïve, we have to be careful and watch out. Several rapes assaults in a short period of time is unusual,” says Opjordsmoen.

According to the support centre, rapes are usually committed by a person known to the victim. The peculiar thing about the many rapes in the city of Oslo now is that they are rapes by ambush, committed by strangers against women on their way home from a bar or in areas with little traffic. “We have seen a dramatic increase [in the number of rapes],” says Endre Sandvik, head of the emergency ward. The number of rapes in Oslo this summer is more than twice as high as it was last year.

In a questions and answers session with newspaper Aftenposten’s readers, Opjordsmoen has some politically correct comments, saying that they don’t know what percentage of these rapes are committed by people with immigrant background, and that much of these speculations is just “prejudice.”

With all due respect, I’m pretty sure that’s incorrect. Just a few weeks earlier, Aftenposten warned that “youths” are in the process of destroying Norway’s capital city, Oslo. Upon closer inspection, it turned out that these “youths” bear a striking resemblance to the same “youths” with Muslim immigrant background that are destroying so many cities across Western Europe. I know Norwegian girls that have experienced harassment by gangs, and it almost always involves Muslims: Turks, Kurds, Arabs, Pakistanis, and Somalis.
[...]
However, Aftenposten seems conveniently enough to have forgotten an article they printed five years ago. In 2001, two out of three charged with rape in Norway’s capital were immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. Norwegian women were victims in 80 percent of the cases.

Unni Wikan, a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, in 2001 said that “Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes” because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor’s conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: “Norwegian women must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”

The numbers published in September 2001 were discussed in at least to out of Norway’s three largest newspapers: Aftenposten and Dagbladet. A leading member of the Liberal Party (Venstre), Odd Einar Dørum, demanded that all the numbers should be put on the table: “A scumbag is a scumbag, regardless of skin color”.

From 2001 to 2005, Dørum was Minister of Justice, and yet nobody has seen these statistics since 2001. The number of rape charges in Oslo has continued to rise, reaching record levels in 2005. There is ample evidence of brutal gang rapes, something that used to be rare in Scandinavia, being committed by immigrants against native girls.
[...]
In Sweden, ethnologist Maria Bäckman, in her study “Whiteness and gender,” has followed a group of Swedish girls in the suburb of Rinkeby outside Stockholm, where native Swedes have been turned into a tiny minority of the inhabitants due to rapid immigration. Bäckman relates that several of the girls she interviewed stated that they had dyed their hair to avoid unwanted attention and sexual harassment. They experienced that being blonde involves old men staring at you, cars honking their horns and boys calling you “whore.”

A report from organization Save the Children tells of how being a young Swedish girl today means feeling unsafe. The girls are scared of being raped, a possibility that appears very real to them. Many girls are planning how to go home at night, how to pretend to be talking on the mobile phone, how to keep their keys in their hand to defend themselves or how to simply run all the way home. Both the fear and the choice of strategies indicate that many girls feel genuinely unsafe outdoors during certain hours of the day. The fear is well founded. A striking number of girls have experienced harassment from boys or men. Most frequently, the harassment comes from boys of the same age as the girls. Being called “whore” has become so common in some schools that several of the girls say the teachers no longer react to this.

Tensta is a suburb in northern Stockholm with a very high concentration of Muslim immigrants. Actress Ylva Törnlund has visited several schools in Tensta, and was alarmed by the harsh atmosphere she discovered there. “The attitudes we meet in the schools are frightening. One boy talked about how girls should be f**ked to pieces until they bleed,” Törnlund said.

This trend is not exclusive to Scandinavia. It is the same all over Western Europe wherever we find significant numbers of Muslim immigrants. In fact, the number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Western nations is so extremely high that it is difficult to view them only as random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. German journalist Gudrun Eussner considers this to be “sexuality as a weapon against disobedient and non-Muslim women, both categorized as “unbelievers”. Against them jihad is the duty, and what to do with women “conquered” in jihad, this may be read in the Qur’an: they become slaves to be used by the victors.”

[my emphasis]


So Flint, please explain how these immigrants are providing the "sunlight" and "rain" that enrich the native culture. I really want to hear you, or anyone, defend this immigration policy.

Please be as detailed as possible. I really want to hear a reasoned defense. Really.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2006,11:09   

Ghost:

Well, I could have sworn I'd written "play by the rules our you're outta here." The rules are being broken. And this is the other side of my "retail evaluation" coin. If you commit a crime, what matters is that you committed a crime, not where you came from or what your "cultural values" once were. You are here, you adopt the local values, or you are gone.

So I'm afraid we're not going to agree here. Rapists should be punished, severely. If they are immigrants, then AFTER they are punished, they should be deported. But *not everyone*. Just those who break the rules. I simply do not accept that I should be punished if you screw up.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2006,06:16   

Flint:
Quote
Ghost:

Well, I could have sworn I'd written "play by the rules our you're outta here." The rules are being broken. And this is the other side of my "retail evaluation" coin.

Yes, and what if the police can't catch many of the perpetrators? And what about the families who produce these thugs? Please show how this can realistically happen, when it ain't happening now. I can point to countries that manage to have tight immigration policies (like America pre-1965, and non-European countries currently), but you can't point to countries successfully, and humanely, expelling immigrants.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2006,10:34   

Flint:

What do you think about the new study which claims Black-White IQ gap has decreased over the last thirty years? One big problem is the the IQ gap seems to widen as Blacks get older (see Figure 3 and the text: from 12 to 15, the Black IQ shrinks from 90.5 to 88.8, and by 24, it's down to 84.5). This is consistent with other nations. For example, the British racial gap expands from .24 to .77 standard deviations when comparing 7 to 15 year olds. This trend has also been observed in adoption research and Head Start follow up reports: early gains are practically erased by 15. What's disturbing about these observations is that the racists claim that Blacks develop earlier than whites, and that the IQ gap should therefore widen over time. Now I would expect some widening during early adolescence, but then the gap should close again as the individuals begin to slough off their early environmental influences. This, apparently, doesn't happen.

Yet the gap has shrunk by 5 points across all age groups.

Should we be optimistic?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2006,09:52   

This might be a good time to explain Flint's objection to my model. He argues that I use the same data to generate and test my ideas, and this suggests that I have an unsupported hypothesis at best. Furthermore, there's no objective metric to measure cultural distance, and even if there were it would not result in the same pattern of accepted or excluded nations.

Of course, this ignores that we can measure a nation's contributions to science and literature by tallying the number of cross-national citations their output inspires, and that economic/political analysis can track a country's commitment to education, capital growth, and democracy. As the British say, the proof really is in the pudding, as dysfunctional cultures exhibit high crime/ HIV infection rates, and low technology and economic achievement. These nations need help, just not the type that immigration provides. Furthermore, we can track a nation's improvements , and upgrade the immigration status of their citizens accordingly. Until then, free trade, temporary access to our colleges, and foreign aid are more efficient, and provide an incentive to improve.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2006,09:01   

I see that Shemp n Hughie have put their time to ill use....now it's time to clean Arfin's clock:

From The Book:

p.20, Prologue: Yali's Question:

"My perspective on this controversy [IQ differences] comes from 33 years of working with New Guineans in their own intact societies. From the very beginning of my work with New Guineans, they impressed me as being on the average more intelligent, more alert, more expressive, and more interested in things and people around them than the average European or American is." [He then talks about their superiority in forming a "mental map of unfamiliar surroundings", while blaming their failures elsewhere on a lack of schooling].

He spends the next paragraphs discussing why New Guineans are smarter than Europeans:

1) Europeans lived in densely populated cities that bred epidemic diseases that didn't discriminate between the intelligent and everyone else;

2) New Guinean tribesmen, on the other hand, had to worry about tribal warfare, crime, and accidents, which selected for a higher IQ.

3) He then brings up Westerner's reliance on passive entertainment such as television, which "contributes a non-genetic component to the superior average mental function displayed by New Guineans". He continues in the very next sentence:
"That is, in mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners, and they surely are superior in escaping the devastating developmental disadvantages under which most children in industrialized societies now grow up."

Now I know that "Europe" and "America" do not equal "white people", but given that he's talking about the dysgenic impact of epidemic diseases throughout these regions's histories, he can't be referring to the relatively recent nonwhite immigrants, and since he spends a lot of time defending Middle and South Americans, he's probably not referring to Amerindians either (especially since Northern Amerindians didn't live in crowded cities). That leaves You-Know-Who.

Still feelin' smug, Arfin?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2006,09:08   

Hi, everyone.

This thread is for the Diamond debate. Notice that this thread has already been contaminated by my various thoughtcrimes, so it's not as if I'm corrupting the morals of delicate Panda's Thumbers by bumping it. Louis and Duff Man, here's where you want to respond to the charges in the above post, or discuss racial issues. Fire away.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2006,09:33   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 04 2006,14:08)
Hi, everyone.

This thread is for the Diamond debate. Notice that this thread has already been contaminated by my various thoughtcrimes, so it's not as if I'm corrupting the morals of delicate Panda's Thumbers by bumping it. Louis and Duff Man, here's where you want to respond to the charges in the above post, or discuss racial issues. Fire away.

I just do not understand the point of this. From experience, Black/White makes no difference in mental ability.
Do you know different?

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2006,09:55   

Quote
I just do not understand the point of this. From experience, Black/White makes no difference in mental ability.
Do you know different?


No, I don't believe that the evidence indicates a genetic difference in mental abilities among various races....but I do think that:

1) Male/female intelligence is distributed differently (men are more likely to be brilliant and retarded)

2) This issue is worth investigating dispassionately, as many government programs/negative attitudes toward whites are based on assuming that all differences in performance are caused exclusively by white racism (I believe that bad cultures cause the difference, but this isn't a fact either)

3) Diamond has clearly expressed racist views.

I'm trying to keep the Christianity & the West thread on topic.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
  245 replies since Nov. 13 2005,11:56 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (9) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]