Big D might be right

[Big D]

Originally posted by Jmarie
Excuse Me? I'm a nice young lady who is not a spinless jellyfish who chooses the path of least resistances no matter how right or wrong it is..I'm a very opinionated woman..I can handle myself thank you very much I don't need a man to help me out..and for to say that about women that is just wrong..I can't believe you would say something like that..

And for blacks I have seen my share of bad ones and my share of good ones..but I have also have seen my share of bad whites too....so how can you sit there and say that all blacks are bad..Not all of them are..I can't sit here and say that all men are bad because I know that no all of them are..My god open your eyes and see what's outside the box not just inside..

Well, if you belive that women are not more emotional then men your post does not reflect that. It is a well known fact that women on the average are more emotional then men and make many decisions based on those emotions.
You know thw saying, "A women has a right to change her mind"?

I don't think ALL blacks are bad people but, as far as crime, blacks commit crime at a extreamly higher rate then any other group, it is not even close.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Big D
Well, if you belive that women are not more emotional then men your post does not reflect that. It is a well known fact that women on the average are more emotional then men and make many decisions based on those emotions.
You know thw saying, "A women has a right to change her mind"?

As far as crime, blacks commit crime at a extreamly higher rate then any other group, it is not even close.

I'm WAY emotional! :

I'm not going to do the arguing tonight, have to go to schools, arggg as a student tomorrow. But, I'm sure we can pick up later. I'm leaving you all in a couple, early for me. Have a good night.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Sometimes people are not even aware of problems, and just choose to believe the rosy view pc politicians want us to believe. Sometimes statistics honestly presented can be real eye opening.

Agreed, EXCEPT:

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. You can prove ANYTHING with them. That makes them too vague to say anything logical. They are just emotional fodder.

Thanks for defending my rights to free speech.

ANYTIME.

I must say I am perturbed by your willingness to ignore problems, simply because they're emotional.

I am willing to ignore the smaller ones which are made insignificant by the parent one. -Mainly and almost only if the smaller ones cannot be fixed without fixing the parent one. Otherwise, you are "urinating in the southerly breeze."

I'm also bothered by your assertion that arguments in and of themselves only fan the flames of nonexistant strawman categories. That's a very rigid conception.

TRUE....and not my exact position. My point in this context is that the strawman categories in this case exist only to swallow up any attempt at seeing the problem for what it is. In that case, arguments need to be looked at in light of such, and determined wether they are productive or not and determined wether or not they adress the bigger issue.
State the argument with ANY room for misunderstanding and you have closed a mind or 5. One oopsie can ruin the movement.

My overwhelming feeling I get from you is that you just don't think it should be discussed.

If that were the case, I would not go on record as stating we both agree what the problem is. I will also go oon record with saying OCA agrees too. We just all three are focussing on different areas and you two focussed in on the smaller areas I already mentioned. You have proven my illustration about the strawman sides and shown exactly what has happened: Nobody can see the issue anymore.

I know you don't want your lib friends, if you have any, to come here and see that there are "racists" on the board. But get over it. Our society is in denial. I don't agree with big d on everything. I have a rosier view than he. But our society is in a lot of denial about a lot of issues. And I'm going down the list. This was next.

I have lib "friends" in that they THINK they are my friends. (If they think). My wife likes to say either people love me or they hate me. Since they talk to me, they don't hate me. I, however, spend a LOT of time and energy trying to like ANYONE. What they see here, I don't care. I have my own circle of things to think about.

As for society being in denial- they aren't in denial, they are beyond hope. They were in denial before Kennedy got shot. When Reagan got shot, they didn't remember anything, and when Clinton was impeached, we didn't know who we were anymore. It's over. We simply have to keep hammering away until the most open and sometimes vulnerable minds can open themselves to seeing reality.

I am glad to hear you don't agree with Big D on everything. I would never desire to allign myself with his name ever. Considering the source, it doesn't do rational logical thought justice.

 

[Big D]

All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today's Whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's Whites must have oppressed them. If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of White people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of White people.

The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-White failure is White racism, every time a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, White society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-Whites is standing proof that White society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only White people can be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that all Whites are racist and that only Whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Agreed, EXCEPT:

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. You can prove ANYTHING with them. That makes them too vague to say anything logical. They are just emotional fodder.

Yet still. sometimes they're straigh forward and obvious. Just because statistics can be used to distort the truth, they aren't ALWAYS used to that end. Hence, I feel that it is wrong to blanketly dismiss the whole science of statistical analysis.

ANYTIME.


I am willing to ignore the smaller ones which are made insignificant by the parent one. -Mainly and almost only if the smaller ones cannot be fixed without fixing the parent one. Otherwise, you are "urinating in the southerly breeze."

I disagree. SOmetimes the smaller battles and issues, the little hiccups and logical distortions in the reality promulgated by politicians, can show the overarching patterns of their deceptions, but you knew that.

TRUE....and not my exact position. My point in this context is that the strawman categories in this case exist only to swallow up any attempt at seeing the problem for what it is.

I disagree. Sometimes people get locked into the rigid logic of the polarizations you discuss, but many of us CAN discuss the issues. Let's encourage people to discuss things, not assume they can't handle it.

In that case, arguments need to be looked at in light of such, and determined wether they are productive or not and determined wether or not they adress the bigger issue.
State the argument with ANY room for misunderstanding and you have closed a mind or 5. One oopsie can ruin the movement.

Yes. well. Such are the chances we take when communicating with anyone about anything. I'm willing to take the risk.

If that were the case, I would not go on record as stating we both agree what the problem is. I will also go oon record with saying OCA agrees too. We just all three are focussing on different areas and you two focussed in on the smaller areas I already mentioned. You have proven my illustration about the strawman sides and shown exactly what has happened: Nobody can see the issue anymore.

Wrong again. If you're putting me in some strawman category, tell me how your characterize that category, and then I'll disabuse you of your wrong notions.

I have lib "friends" in that they THINK they are my friends. (If they think). My wife likes to say either people love me or they hate me. Since they talk to me, they don't hate me. I, however, spend a LOT of time and energy trying to like ANYONE. What they see here, I don't care. I have my own circle of things to think about.

Yes. Well more power to you, ubermensche.

As for society being in denial- they aren't in denial, they are beyond hope. They were in denial before Kennedy got shot. When Reagan got shot, they didn't remember anything, and when Clinton was impeached, we didn't know who we were anymore. It's over. We simply have to keep hammering away until the most open and sometimes vulnerable minds can open themselves to seeing reality.

Discussing things furthers that end of opening minds to reality.

I am glad to hear you don't agree with Big D on everything. I would never desire to allign myself with his name ever. Considering the source, it doesn't do rational logical thought justice.

 

[NewGuy]

I guess, RWA we disagree on some things yet again.

Good, in a way, because in any case, we may both do justice to the issue from both fronts.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
I guess, RWA we disagree on some things yet again.

Good, in a way, because in any case, we may both do justice to the issue from both fronts.

I know you love arguing. So I just don't buy this "discussing things only fans the flames" schpiel. Since when have you been known to shy away from controversy? Or since when have you been averse to being "pigeonholed"? Would it suprise you to know that some may consider you some sort of "bible thumper" or "zealot"? Don't pee on my shoe and tell me it's raining, man. I wouldn't do that to you. And you just can't kid a kidder either, Newguy, if that IS your name.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I know you love arguing. So I just don't buy this "discussing things only fans the flames" schpiel. Since when have you been known to shy away from controversy? Or since when have you been averse to being "pigeonholed"? Would it suprise you to know that some may consider you some sort of "bible thumper" or "zealot"? Don't pee on my shoe and tell me it's raining, man. I wouldn't do that to you. And you just can't kid a kidder either, Newguy, if that IS your name.

The bottom line is that I am sitting in 90 degree heat, I am tired, and right now I just don't care a whole lot to argue when we are both sure of the larger issue.

The smaller issues, again, don't win the war. If you can make a dent in them, fine. If you can fight BOTH fronts, more power to you. As you have seen, my energy is limited on this sort of issue as my chosen primary issues to fight aren't here, but in other areas.

Arguing I DO like, but only when there is something to be gained. What am I going to do here, convince you? Primarilly, we agree. We disagree on lesser things.

I know people consider me a "Bible thumper", but I just care about what I am labelled as much as I care about what color socks I wear with Levis and steel toe boots. (my standard garb)

Also, NewGuy ISN'T my name.....My birth certificate says something else.

But then, you can never trust those govt. docs, can ya?
:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
The bottom line is that I am sitting in 90 degree heat, I am tired, and right now I just don't care a whole lot to argue when we are both sure of the larger issue.

The smaller issues, again, don't win the war. If you can make a dent in them, fine. If you can fight BOTH fronts, more power to you. As you have seen, my energy is limited on this sort of issue as my chosen primary issues to fight aren't here, but in other areas.

Arguing I DO like, but only when there is something to be gained. What am I going to do here, convince you? Primarilly, we agree. We disagree on lesser things.

I know people consider me a "Bible thumper", but I just care about what I am labelled as much as I care about what color socks I wear with Levis and steel toe boots. (my standard garb)

Also, NewGuy ISN'T my name.....My birth certificate says something else.

But then, you can never trust those govt. docs, can ya?
:

Well go take a nap man.

Yes. Noone can convince me of a damn thing, and I'm proud of it. I'm an American, dammit.

Why do you care about the color of you socks? Are some kind of prissy, sissy fancy boy or something?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr

Why do you care about the color of you socks? Are some kind of prissy, sissy fancy boy or something?

You just hate me because my lipstick is better than yours.

 

[Big D]

Just in case if you forgot about the women who was burded alive to help pay the debt of slavery.

The Franklin County coroner said Nance died of smoke inhalation and carbon monoxide poisoning before being burned in the blaze.

http://www.nbc4columbus.com/news/3447847/detail.html

 

[007]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Don't pee on my shoe and tell me it's raining, man.

Hey, that's my line, and if you're going to use it, get it right.

 

[Big D]

All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today's Whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's Whites must have oppressed them. If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of White people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of White people.

The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-White failure is White racism, every time a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, White society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-Whites is standing proof that White society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only White people can be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that all Whites are racist and that only Whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Big D
All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today's Whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's Whites must have oppressed them. If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of White people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of White people.

The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-White failure is White racism, every time a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, White society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-Whites is standing proof that White society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only White people can be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that all Whites are racist and that only Whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?

This is your brain on drugs.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by nycflasher

This is your brain on drugs.

Your inability to dispute the post on anything approaching a logical basis only reveals it's truth. That is the rigid racial logic, and you believe it. Emoticons are all you have. How sad.

 

[nycflasher]

What's that, peckerwood? Does this convoluted crap make sense to you?

"Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences."

 

[Big D]

Originally posted by nycflasher

"Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences."

Affirmitive Action is a law we have to make up for "White wickedness", or is it to make up for "racial differences"?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by nycflasher
What's that, peckerwood? Does this convoluted crap make sense to you?

"Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences."

It's crystal clear. Which word or combination of words confuses you?

 

[Big D]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by nycflasher

"Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affirmitive Action is a law we have to make up for "White wickedness", or is it to make up for "racial differences"?